PDA

View Full Version : Change of heart



sandsjames
05-22-2014, 10:29 PM
In the past I've made it very clear how I have felt about social programs, etc.

I'd just like to say that over the past few months I've been doing quite a bit of "soul searching" and have come to the conclusion that I believe I've been completely wrong.

Are there people out there taking advantage of the system? Of course. But it doesn't matter. As a Christian, it's up to me to do what I can to help those who have very little/nothing. If that means that I have to vote for someone who wants to raise taxes to spend more on social programs then so be it.

I still believe there are better ways to do it then raising taxes for the rich (I feel that a flat tax for middle class and up would be the best way to go) but as far as the healthcare/welfare/etc go, I'm fully behind it. If that means I have less...I'm fine with that.

If the programs ended up helping only one "deserving" person while allowing thousands to take advantage of the system, I'm good with that.

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, give unto God that which is God's".

Just let me add that this change of heart does not come from any personal/family related incident. This is strictly a religious "slap in the face" I've recently had. It's a shame that it took me so long, but all that matters is that I got there before it was too late.

I'd also like to add that I'm not condemning those of you who feel the way I used to. I see your point, I understand your arguments, because they were mine for a long time.

Chief_KO
05-23-2014, 03:47 AM
Appreciate your honesty.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-23-2014, 11:13 AM
It's pretty cool that you decided to share that with us.

I have mixed feelings about the effectiveness of certain social programs, but I certainly recognize that there is a valid need for them.

Do you care to tell us what the "slap in the face" was?

sandsjames
05-23-2014, 11:33 AM
It's pretty cool that you decided to share that with us.

I have mixed feelings about the effectiveness of certain social programs, but I certainly recognize that there is a valid need for them.

Do you care to tell us what the "slap in the face" was?

There was nothing specific at all. Just a feeling, I guess. There wasn't any instance that occurred. Just been doing a lot of thinking, taking inventory of myself and my life.

I know how many feel about religion and the hypocritical actions of the majority of Christians, so I started asking myself why that is. I've rewatched a few movies over the past couple of weeks ("The Bible", etc) and have done some reading and there is always the same message when it comes to the life of Jesus. He never judged anyone. Whether you believe he is the Son of God or believe he was just a man, the message was still the same...his actions were always the same. No matter the actions of the person, no matter the intent of the person, he was going to help them. Prostitute, thief, murdererer, etc, he wanted to help.

I believed that many of the poor people in our society could get out of the situations they are in if they try. I still believe that. But it's not up to me to separate those people from the ones that are truly in need. I'm not smart enough to know exactly why people are in the situations they are in. I am smart enough to know that, whatever the reason, they still do not deserve to suffer. It's up to me to offer assistance in any way I can when the opportunity arises.

Does this mean that I will be giving away all my belongings and all my time to charity? No. I'm still a hypocrytical Christian. But hopefully it means that, in the future, I will pay closer attention to the state of peoples lives and peoples situations and be more understanding.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2014, 12:22 PM
Sandsjames, keep giving it more thought, because the even greater epiphany will be knowing where you - yourself - stand in this society.

I'm in full agreement with what you're saying, but here are two other aspects of my beliefs concerning that:

1. Realize the most important thing that we have in common with those on public assistance is that neither of us make the rules in our society. We don't draft bills, pass them, veto them, or sign them into law. Nor do we have the money or equivalent power to influence those who do. We're simply pieces in a game that the powers that be make the rules to. It is those who make the rules, and those with the money and/or power to influence them, that our anger needs to be directed toward. But these people have been very effective at making scapegoats of those on public assistance to deflect any and all attention away from them.


2. We need to stop identifying with the rich and powerful because, in reality, we're only hurting ourselves by identifying with them. I told everyone the story here, not too long ago, about the middle aged woman with missing teeth and a torn up t-shirt driving an old minivan that looked like it was about to fall apart, with a bumper sticker on that back that said "Your fair share is not in my wallet." Clearly, this woman was very delusional about her OWN place in our society, thinking that she's somehow rich enough to be hoarding any money denied others through crony capitalism; instead of realizing that she's a victim of it herself. My favorite line by Jesus: "He who exatls himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted." I can think of no more of a true statement in the entire Bible than that one. In the context of the woman I'm talking about, because she thinks herself as being higher in our society than what she is, she's going to vote accordingly - thus hurting herself, and giving more ability to those who want to take away from her.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-23-2014, 01:47 PM
There was nothing specific at all. Just a feeling, I guess. There wasn't any instance that occurred. Just been doing a lot of thinking, taking inventory of myself and my life.

I know how many feel about religion and the hypocritical actions of the majority of Christians, so I started asking myself why that is. I've rewatched a few movies over the past couple of weeks ("The Bible", etc) and have done some reading and there is always the same message when it comes to the life of Jesus. He never judged anyone. Whether you believe he is the Son of God or believe he was just a man, the message was still the same...his actions were always the same. No matter the actions of the person, no matter the intent of the person, he was going to help them. Prostitute, thief, murdererer, etc, he wanted to help.

I believed that many of the poor people in our society could get out of the situations they are in if they try. I still believe that. But it's not up to me to separate those people from the ones that are truly in need. I'm not smart enough to know exactly why people are in the situations they are in. I am smart enough to know that, whatever the reason, they still do not deserve to suffer. It's up to me to offer assistance in any way I can when the opportunity arises.

Does this mean that I will be giving away all my belongings and all my time to charity? No. I'm still a hypocrytical Christian. But hopefully it means that, in the future, I will pay closer attention to the state of peoples lives and peoples situations and be more understanding.

That sounds like a pretty good plan to me.

I seem to remember a I conversation in another thread where I hit you over the head with a few bible verses on that very thing.

I'm going to go ahead and take full credit for your change of heart. I'm currently writing my MTF EPR, and that will make a nice double-bullet.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2014, 02:34 PM
That sounds like a pretty good plan to me.

I seem to remember a I conversation in another thread where I hit you over the head with a few bible verses on that very thing.

I'm going to go ahead and take full credit for your change of heart. I'm currently writing my MTF EPR, and that will make a nice double-bullet.

Hey, no need for the "I told you so." He's just now seeing the other side, and at this early of a stage, this new outlook could still be fragile.

Even though I've thought this way for YEARS, I've still seen things that make me question it. For example, when I drove taxis, the one thing that used to piss me off to no end is when I would get calls to the housing projects and take people to McDonald's or any other fast food restuarant.

Granted, as a taxi driver, you hate taking people to drive-thrus, because the meter slows while you're waiting in line. Add to the fact that you know you're not getting a tip from someone you picked up in the projects to make up for slowing the meter, and that makes it worse.

But you know what sucks even more? When the fast food joint is just a few blocks down the street; and after all is said and done, the fare is $7. That's $7 on top of a $7 value meal at McDonald's. So, basically, they spent $14 on a $7 meal at McDonald's, because they didn't feel like walking.

Here's the thing: I've got no problem with someone buying king crab legs or a two-inch thick porterhouse steak (most of you don't realize that they've gotta eat ramen the night before in order to eat that the next day). I've got no problem with them if they would have taken that same $14, and got themselves a meal at Chili's with it. Enjoy life... your life shouldn't suck because you're poor or on public assistance, or because you're afraid of pissing off people who don't know where their anger SHOULD be directed.

But $14 on a $7 meal, because you don't feel like walking two or three blocks down the street? That's a WASTE of money.

What if Sandsjames experienced that right now? Would he immediately snap out of his new change of heart? I don't know. But I'm not going to toy with him. At least not yet!

sandsjames
05-23-2014, 02:42 PM
That sounds like a pretty good plan to me.

I seem to remember a I conversation in another thread where I hit you over the head with a few bible verses on that very thing.

I'm going to go ahead and take full credit for your change of heart. I'm currently writing my MTF EPR, and that will make a nice double-bullet.

I appreciate you being the sole factor. If you need proof that you facilitated this whole thing I will sign off.

I won't lie. It played a part. Not initially, but I was watching something on TV that was covering all the "meek inherit the earth" and "camel through the eye of a needle" stuff, so I sat down (actually, was already sitting down) and really started thinking about it. I was already very familiar with the verses, what they meant, and what the intention was, I just realized that I was looking at them from the wrong point of view.

I will also say this. This doesn't mean that I'm going to start bashing rich people or thinking that they haven't earned what they have. As a matter of fact, I feel they probably need just as much, if not more, compassion as the poor. I don't feel they should feel obligated or forced to do anything with their money they don't want to. I just feel it's my obligation to support those things that do help those who need it.

This isn't about others. This isn't about the political system or how things should be ran. It's about how I personally deal with certain situations.

TJMAC77SP
05-23-2014, 03:33 PM
I am a little puzzled by the gloating over SJ's change of heart. I for one don't remember him ever saying that entitlement programs should not be in existence. His only change in stance now seems to be forgiving of those low life's who cheat the system (I am still of a stone heart in that regard).

I do remember however many times when people who have cited wastes and abuses in these programs were labeled as wanting to get rid of them thus putting words into their mouths. Seems that hasn't changed.

sandsjames
05-23-2014, 03:40 PM
Hey, no need for the "I told you so." He's just now seeing the other side, and at this early of a stage, this new outlook could still be fragile.

Even though I've thought this way for YEARS, I've still seen things that make me question it. For example, when I drove taxis, the one thing that used to piss me off to no end is when I would get calls to the housing projects and take people to McDonald's or any other fast food restuarant.

Granted, as a taxi driver, you hate taking people to drive-thrus, because the meter slows while you're waiting in line. Add to the fact that you know you're not getting a tip from someone you picked up in the projects to make up for slowing the meter, and that makes it worse.

But you know what sucks even more? When the fast food joint is just a few blocks down the street; and after all is said and done, the fare is $7. That's $7 on top of a $7 value meal at McDonald's. So, basically, they spent $14 on a $7 meal at McDonald's, because they didn't feel like walking.

Here's the thing: I've got no problem with someone buying king crab legs or a two-inch thick porterhouse steak (most of you don't realize that they've gotta eat ramen the night before in order to eat that the next day). I've got no problem with them if they would have taken that same $14, and got themselves a meal at Chili's with it. Enjoy life... your life shouldn't suck because you're poor or on public assistance, or because you're afraid of pissing off people who don't know where their anger SHOULD be directed.

But $14 on a $7 meal, because you don't feel like walking two or three blocks down the street? That's a WASTE of money.

What if Sandsjames experienced that right now? Would he immediately snap out of his new change of heart? I don't know. But I'm not going to toy with him. At least not yet!

You can feel free to toy with me. I don't mind. I haven't changed my perspective on how society is or how others should deal with their lifestyles. I still know that there are several people taking advantage of the system. I still feel that people shouldn't be expected to pay out a higher percentage of their wages if they make more.

I'm just saying that, for me, I'm not concerned with whether my tax dollars are being wasted because if even a little of it is going to help only 1 person who is really in need then I am happy with that. I'm not calling for a societal change or a change of principals from anyone else other than myself.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2014, 04:22 PM
You can feel free to toy with me. I don't mind. I haven't changed my perspective on how society is or how others should deal with their lifestyles. I still know that there are several people taking advantage of the system. I still feel that people shouldn't be expected to pay out a higher percentage of their wages if they make more.

I'm just saying that, for me, I'm not concerned with whether my tax dollars are being wasted because if even a little of it is going to help only 1 person who is really in need then I am happy with that. I'm not calling for a societal change or a change of principals from anyone else other than myself.

So, basically, you're lukewarm. Okay...

sandsjames
05-23-2014, 04:40 PM
So, basically, you're lukewarm. Okay...

Luke warm to what?

My feelings are based off of my religious beliefs. If I'm basing my thoughts off of the belief that Jesus helped the poor then I must also base my thoughts off the belief that Jesus never forced anyone to follow his ideas, give money, or help anyone That's what made him such a great leader (cross-thread reference). To expand on that, the statement about "giving unto Caesar" has nothing to do with paying taxes. It's saying (paraphrase) "who cares how much money they want from you, the money isn't important because being rich isn't what is going to get you into heaven." It's not saying anything close to "taxes are a requirement, we should just accept it".

Absinthe Anecdote
05-23-2014, 04:42 PM
I am a little puzzled by the gloating over SJ's change of heart. I for one don't remember him ever saying that entitlement programs should not be in existence. His only change in stance now seems to be forgiving of those low life's who cheat the system (I am still of a stone heart in that regard).

I do remember however many times when people who have cited wastes and abuses in these programs were labeled as wanting to get rid of them thus putting words into their mouths. Seems that hasn't changed.

There is always reason to gloat; you'd be pleased to know, that self-righteousness is dripping like honey from my tongue onto my keyboard as I type this.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to typing my essay on how Toby Keith is a negative influence on white moral values.

sandsjames
05-23-2014, 04:49 PM
I am a little puzzled by the gloating over SJ's change of heart. I for one don't remember him ever saying that entitlement programs should not be in existence. His only change in stance now seems to be forgiving of those low life's who cheat the system (I am still of a stone heart in that regard).

I do remember however many times when people who have cited wastes and abuses in these programs were labeled as wanting to get rid of them thus putting words into their mouths. Seems that hasn't changed.

Great point TJ. Thanks for clarifying for me. You said it better than I did, I suppose. I've always stated we needed the systems but that they could be improved. But, as you say, I was very derogatory towards those who misused it. I'm past that now.

I also agree with your second point. Wanting fixes doesn't mean one wants to abolish the systems.

sandsjames
05-23-2014, 04:50 PM
There is always reason to gloat; you'd be pleased to know, that self-righteousness is dripping like honey from my tongue onto my keyboard as I type this.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to typing my essay on how Toby Keith is a negative influence on white moral values.

You'll never convince me of that. The catholics make the cross symbol when they pray. There are 4 points on the cross. The Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Toby Keith. There is no denying that.

sandsjames
05-23-2014, 04:51 PM
I was actually hoping this thread wouldn't turn political, but I guess it's unavoidable.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-23-2014, 04:57 PM
Luke warm to what?

My feelings are based off of my religious beliefs. If I'm basing my thoughts off of the belief that Jesus helped the poor then I must also base my thoughts off the belief that Jesus never forced anyone to follow his ideas, give money, or help anyone That's what made him such a great leader (cross-thread reference). To expand on that, the statement about "giving unto Caesar" has nothing to do with paying taxes. It's saying (paraphrase) "who cares how much money they want from you, the money isn't important because being rich isn't what is going to get you into heaven." It's not saying anything close to "taxes are a requirement, we should just accept it".

You really need to read Matthew 22:15-21 again, it is a direct response from Jesus to a disciples question about paying taxes.

Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar

Matthew 22
New International Version (NIV)

15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022&version=NIV

LogDog
05-23-2014, 05:44 PM
In the past I've made it very clear how I have felt about social programs, etc.

I'd just like to say that over the past few months I've been doing quite a bit of "soul searching" and have come to the conclusion that I believe I've been completely wrong.

Are there people out there taking advantage of the system? Of course. But it doesn't matter. As a Christian, it's up to me to do what I can to help those who have very little/nothing. If that means that I have to vote for someone who wants to raise taxes to spend more on social programs then so be it.

I still believe there are better ways to do it then raising taxes for the rich (I feel that a flat tax for middle class and up would be the best way to go) but as far as the healthcare/welfare/etc go, I'm fully behind it. If that means I have less...I'm fine with that.

If the programs ended up helping only one "deserving" person while allowing thousands to take advantage of the system, I'm good with that.

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, give unto God that which is God's".

Just let me add that this change of heart does not come from any personal/family related incident. This is strictly a religious "slap in the face" I've recently had. It's a shame that it took me so long, but all that matters is that I got there before it was too late.

I'd also like to add that I'm not condemning those of you who feel the way I used to. I see your point, I understand your arguments, because they were mine for a long time.
I don't care for people who abuse programs to help others who actually need help. The social programs are the safety nets society constructed to keep people from endless poverty or suffering. The analogy I use is that of a trapeze artist in a circus. If he looses his grip and falls, the (safety) net is there to catch him and help lift him back up so he can climb the ladder and resume his position in society (circus).

I alone cannot help everyone but collectively as a society we can. I don't mind paying more in taxes if that will help those less fortunate than myself because that's part of the contract individuals have with society. In my small city, we have a bond measure on the ballot to raise $29 million by issuing five-year bonds. The yearly tax increase on me would be about $450 a year to pay off the bond but that's something I'm, a person without any children, am willing to do because it benefits the children and also society as a whole by educating those who will be the doctors, lawyers, nurses, auto mechanics, soldiers/sailors/airmen, etc. of the future.

I hope as time goes forward you'll increase your awareness and support of those truly in need.

sandsjames
05-23-2014, 05:44 PM
You really need to read Matthew 22:15-21 again, it is a direct response from Jesus to a disciples question about paying taxes.

Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar

Matthew 22
New International Version (NIV)

15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022&version=NIV

That is absolutely what he says. The way I take it is that he's saying "The money isn't important. It's not of God. It is of Caesar. Let him have it. You don't need it to enter into heaven".

It's not about paying taxes. It's about putting Godly things ahead of Earthly things. It could have been anything. It just so happened that the example given takes place in the temple with money changing hands.

If it was a home, and the Roman's came to take the home away, the same statement would have been made. It's not that one shouldn't have a home, it's that they shouldn't value it more than they value God. It shouldn't define them.

sandsjames
05-23-2014, 05:46 PM
I don't care for people who abuse programs to help others who actually need help. The social programs are the safety nets society constructed to keep people from endless poverty or suffering. The analogy I use is that of a trapeze artist in a circus. If he looses his grip and falls, the (safety) net is there to catch him and help lift him back up so he can climb the ladder and resume his position in society (circus).

I alone cannot help everyone but collectively as a society we can. I don't mind paying more in taxes if that will help those less fortunate than myself because that's part of the contract individuals have with society. In my small city, we have a bond measure on the ballot to raise $29 million by issuing five-year bonds. The yearly tax increase on me would be about $450 a year to pay off the bond but that's something I'm, a person without any children, am willing to do because it benefits the children and also society as a whole by educating those who will be the doctors, lawyers, nurses, auto mechanics, soldiers/sailors/airmen, etc. of the future.

I hope as time goes forward you'll increase your awareness and support of those truly in need.I too would support that bond. In the recent past I probably wouldn't have but the example you've stated is exactly the point I was trying to make about the "change of heart" I've had.

Rusty Jones
05-23-2014, 05:48 PM
That is absolutely what he says. The way I take it is that he's saying "The money isn't important. It's not of God. It is of Caesar. Let him have it. You don't need it to enter into heaven".

It's not about paying taxes. It's about putting Godly things ahead of Earthly things. It could have been anything. It just so happened that the example given takes place in the temple with money changing hands.

If it was a home, and the Roman's came to take the home away, the same statement would have been made. It's not that one shouldn't have a home, it's that they shouldn't value it more than they value God. It shouldn't define them.

Aside from no proof in there of being a deity, if there's one reason why I don't believe in the Abrahamic God, it's because of the fact that the Bible is - by far - the most dynamic book ever written. It says whatever the individual believer wants it to say.

To me, each page says "I'm toilet paper. Please use me."

CYBERFX1024
05-23-2014, 07:13 PM
First I want to say a big up to you on doing some critical thinking and evaluating how you feel about a particular subject. Myself on the other hand still believe that a vast majority of social programs are a waste of time and money for the most part. That's my hard earned money that I need to help support my family.
I have seen first hand that people will use and abuse the system just because they lazy and can do it. I believe in some social programs are good i.e. food stamps and medicaid. But they are only good for people that actually use them on what they are supposed to use them on, and for people that are legitimately struggling and just need a little helping hand.

TJMAC77SP
05-23-2014, 07:33 PM
There is always reason to gloat; you'd be pleased to know, that self-righteousness is dripping like honey from my tongue onto my keyboard as I type this.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to typing my essay on how Toby Keith is a negative influence on white moral values.

Yeah, good luck with that.

sandsjames
05-23-2014, 08:11 PM
Aside from no proof in there of being a deity, if there's one reason why I don't believe in the Abrahamic God, it's because of the fact that the Bible is - by far - the most dynamic book ever written. It says whatever the individual believer wants it to say.

To me, each page says "I'm toilet paper. Please use me."

That's cool. Again, not trying to turn this into an argument about what's right or wrong. Just wanted to pass on how I was feeling.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-23-2014, 10:30 PM
That is absolutely what he says. The way I take it is that he's saying "The money isn't important. It's not of God. It is of Caesar. Let him have it. You don't need it to enter into heaven".

It's not about paying taxes. It's about putting Godly things ahead of Earthly things. It could have been anything. It just so happened that the example given takes place in the temple with money changing hands.

If it was a home, and the Roman's came to take the home away, the same statement would have been made. It's not that one shouldn't have a home, it's that they shouldn't value it more than they value God. It shouldn't define them.

LOL!

You still haven't read that passage, the rest of Matthew, or the rest of the bible, have you?

sandsjames
05-23-2014, 11:42 PM
LOL!

You still haven't read that passage, the rest of Matthew, or the rest of the bible, have you?

When did I say I've never read the "rest of the bible"? You once asked me if I'd read the bible from front to back like a book. I said no. I have never read the bible from front to back like I would read a book. I have, however, read the entire bible over time, at one time or another.

And I will state again that the part about taxes has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with putting God before money, or property, or anything else we come to covet.

So LOL all you want, but the verses you are pointing out have nothing to do with what you are claiming.

Either way, let's pretend that it says exactly what you claim it is saying. I'm pretty sure I've never said that anyone should avoid paying taxes. As a matter of fact, I've stated the exact opposite.

GeoDude
05-23-2014, 11:42 PM
Regardless of one's feelings on social safety nets - what will happen when the vast majority of jobs are replaced by machines? By definition, technological revolutions are owned by those with the capital. What about the other 99% of the population?

I'm not saying welfare is here to say - I'm saying welfare will only increase in size and scope from here on out.

DannyJ
05-24-2014, 12:11 AM
regardless of one's feelings on social safety nets - what will happen when the vast majority of jobs are replaced by machines? By definition, technological revolutions are owned by those with the capital. What about the other 99% of the population?

I'm not saying welfare is here to say - i'm saying welfare will only increase in size and scope from here on out.

ermehgerd skurnurt is gunner gurt urse!

DannyJ
05-24-2014, 12:25 AM
So, I'm of mixed feelings on social programs. There's always going to be a need and there's always going to be contention over whether the people that use them, truly need them; but I believe that as a human, not as a Christian, that we should help others in need. Certainly doesn't mean I'm open for writing a blank check to those who say they are in need, but helping those that need it is certainly a worthwhile endevor.

Current programs do piss me off a bit though. There are too many in number that are too small in scale. Many fractured programs competeing for their 15 minutes rather than focusing on those in need. Highest on my BS list is, and will always be, welfare. Social security, disability, etc, etc, etc offer the same benefit, but without writing a free check to sit on your ass or have 25 kids. I'm a huge fan of co-op based programs that require those that benefit put into the very system they draw from rather than just recieve. Not everyone is capable of everything, but everyone is capable of something, which is what matters. Not saying everyone is capable of having a solid job, but they damn well can contribute somehow.

I've never been a big fan of handing out cash or check to those asking, which is why I dislike welfare so much; I'd much rather devote time as a volunteer. Food pantries, Habitat for Humanity, soup kitchens, no cost day care centers, etc have been a real outlet to allow me and mine to give back without opening up the wallet. I'm glad there are people that do donate money, but I don't see the sense in doing it myself.

Just as a FYI, I do identify as a Dem, just tend not to follow the company line on social programs.

GeoDude
05-24-2014, 02:52 AM
ermehgerd skurnurt is gunner gurt urse!

I don't follow...?

Rizzo77
05-24-2014, 02:53 AM
Give to your heart's content! Giving can make you feel good. BUT, how about TAKING? STOP taking my sh1t and giving it to any other person.

YOU give; I am tired of "giving."

GeoDude
05-24-2014, 02:55 AM
Give to your heart's content! Giving can make you feel good. BUT, how about TAKING? STOP taking my sh1t and giving it to any other person.

YOU give; I am tired of "giving."

Fair enough. So don't send any of your kids to public schools, don't use any government funded roads, don't ever collect any kind of UI or social security, don't ever call the police or fire department, and don't use tap water or electricity. If you use any of the above listed services, you are "taking".

AJBIGJ
05-24-2014, 03:08 PM
Regardless of one's feelings on social safety nets - what will happen when the vast majority of jobs are replaced by machines? By definition, technological revolutions are owned by those with the capital. What about the other 99% of the population?

I'm not saying welfare is here to say - I'm saying welfare will only increase in size and scope from here on out.

A good research topic for you is what is known as the "Luddite Fallacy", and for anyone who feels similarly. These types of concerns have been raised ever since the invention of the cotton gin. I'll grow concerned about automation/undocumented immigrant labor/foreign outsourcing as soon as I feel that human imagination has reached its upper limitations, but not before.

AJBIGJ
05-24-2014, 03:19 PM
In the past I've made it very clear how I have felt about social programs, etc.


I'm not going to draw this out significantly, honestly part of your premise I agree with wholeheartedly in at least the importance of not making your arguments based solely on fears that people are wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive of the current system.

What is worth considering is what type of criteria your change of heart is based in, whether it is an emotional reaction or an intellectual one. I would personally argue towards the former of the two but for now I would leave it a rhetorical question because I do think it is worthy of drawing into your retrospective critical thinking. When I'm not constrained by time I might like to go into the more intellectually driven analysis of the necessity of social welfare programs and observe their net effects historically (being it's hardly a new concept, we can track social welfarism at least as far back as the Roman Republic).

We can also go into the more philosophical meanderings of Adam Smith and other great thinkers on the subjects at hand. But first I would encourage you towards a little more self-examination of what is driving this change of heart, because I do think it may actually be worth the time to at least consider.

I don't look to the Pope as a great thinker on economics for good reason, he is a guide of things that are spiritual (and emotional by default) and not an expert in the second and third order effects of decisions that are enforced on a society. Spiritual decisions are by their nature a personal thing and are obviously not going to be equally received by every single person out there.

sandsjames
05-24-2014, 04:10 PM
I'm not going to draw this out significantly, honestly part of your premise I agree with wholeheartedly in at least the importance of not making your arguments based solely on fears that people are wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive of the current system.

What is worth considering is what type of criteria your change of heart is based in, whether it is an emotional reaction or an intellectual one. I would personally argue towards the former of the two but for now I would leave it a rhetorical question because I do think it is worthy of drawing into your retrospective critical thinking. When I'm not constrained by time I might like to go into the more intellectually driven analysis of the necessity of social welfare programs and observe their net effects historically (being it's hardly a new concept, we can track social welfarism at least as far back as the Roman Republic).

We can also go into the more philosophical meanderings of Adam Smith and other great thinkers on the subjects at hand. But first I would encourage you towards a little more self-examination of what is driving this change of heart, because I do think it may actually be worth the time to at least consider.

I don't look to the Pope as a great thinker on economics for good reason, he is a guide of things that are spiritual (and emotional by default) and not an expert in the second and third order effects of decisions that are enforced on a society. Spiritual decisions are by their nature a personal thing and are obviously not going to be equally received by every single person out there.

It's simply based on spiritual reasons. I'm no economist, so I really don't know which system works best to reduce the number of lower class, and obviously neither does our government. So, the best I can do is do my best to support those things that currently support the lower class and let everything else be what it is.

TJMAC77SP
05-24-2014, 04:23 PM
Fair enough. So don't send any of your kids to public schools, don't use any government funded roads, don't ever collect any kind of UI or social security, don't ever call the police or fire department, and don't use tap water or electricity. If you use any of the above listed services, you are "taking".

The services you cite are paid for by taxes and therefore are a give and take situation. I pay property tax therefore I have police and fire protection and public schools. I pay into the SS system for a lifetime and extract an annuity later in life. I believe the poster referred to entitlement programs.

sandsjames
05-24-2014, 06:37 PM
Just to clarify, I don't care the least bit what the government does. I'm simply talking about my own personal feelings towards the poor/lower class, many of who are considered to be lazy and some who very well may be.

And I don't think it helps that the average everyday Joe thinks they are an expert on how to fix the economy. We can't control that. All we can control is how we act and what we do, personally, to help those who need it most.

GeoDude
05-24-2014, 07:38 PM
A good research topic for you is what is known as the "Luddite Fallacy", and for anyone who feels similarly. These types of concerns have been raised ever since the invention of the cotton gin. I'll grow concerned about automation/undocumented immigrant labor/foreign outsourcing as soon as I feel that human imagination has reached its upper limitations, but not before.

Technological revolutions of the past benefited the masses in the long run because they created new jobs to replace the ones they eliminated. A "Robot Revolution" could quite easily simply replace jobs without creating new ones. Not just machines building machines - but if machines eventually write their own code - making human innovation unecessary. This might be a needless concern, but not one that shouldn't be taken into consideration. Also note that the problem isn't the robot revolution itself - the problem is that such a revolution, under our current system, would be entirely owned by a select few individuals who own the capital in this country.

This isn't a newly identified problem - Marxist theorists have claimed for over a 150 years that an underlying goal of capitalism is to create a surplus of labor - driving down costs for employers. Even Bill Gates, a supposed "liberal" - has claimed that coding should be taught in high schools. One could imagine what would happen to these people - many of whom make 6 figures a year, if millions of people were graduating HS with the same skill set. Coding would just be another minimum wage job - but again - that is the goal of any large company, to drive down personel costs.

GeoDude
05-24-2014, 07:42 PM
The services you cite are paid for by taxes and therefore are a give and take situation. I pay property tax therefore I have police and fire protection and public schools. I pay into the SS system for a lifetime and extract an annuity later in life. I believe the poster referred to entitlement programs.

Entitlement programs are also paid for by taxes yes? If I become unemployed, am I taking Rizzo's money by claiming UI? If I break my back, am I stealing from Rizzo by claiming medicare and social security? Rizzo's logic is doubly flawed because he himself benefits from public funding, even if he is unaware of it.

AJBIGJ
05-24-2014, 08:06 PM
It's simply based on spiritual reasons. I'm no economist, so I really don't know which system works best to reduce the number of lower class, and obviously neither does our government. So, the best I can do is do my best to support those things that currently support the lower class and let everything else be what it is.

The funny thing is it really doesn't take an economist to parse it out. You know the old saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" isn't merely a cliche, there is some validity to the saying itself in the net effects of the policy. It is important to evaluate whether the net effects of the programs are beneficial not only over the short term, but also the long term. That's why I hold the belief you cannot base such decisions on an emotional (or even spiritual) approach because it will tend to muddle good sense. It is the tool of the demagogue after all. Just food for thought.

AJBIGJ
05-24-2014, 08:25 PM
Technological revolutions of the past benefited the masses in the long run because they created new jobs to replace the ones they eliminated. A "Robot Revolution" could quite easily simply replace jobs without creating new ones. Not just machines building machines - but if machines eventually write their own code - making human innovation unecessary. This might be a needless concern, but not one that shouldn't be taken into consideration. Also note that the problem isn't the robot revolution itself - the problem is that such a revolution, under our current system, would be entirely owned by a select few individuals who own the capital in this country.

This isn't a newly identified problem - Marxist theorists have claimed for over a 150 years that an underlying goal of capitalism is to create a surplus of labor - driving down costs for employers. Even Bill Gates, a supposed "liberal" - has claimed that coding should be taught in high schools. One could imagine what would happen to these people - many of whom make 6 figures a year, if millions of people were graduating HS with the same skill set. Coding would just be another minimum wage job - but again - that is the goal of any large company, to drive down personel costs.

Well in short, the problem that would exist when robots "takeover" in some Terminatoresque fashion or what-not, presuming they are not exterminating our entire species, the lack of creation of new jobs is not the result of anything but the lack of imagination of the people.

The problem with most Marxist theories is they treat "capitalism" as some kind of entity that has a devious underlying purpose. "Capitalism" is no more than the chosen actions of individuals, more a verb than a noun in this context. Individuals make the decisions of whether or not to trade one good for another because they feel the good they receive has more benefit than the one they provide as compensation. If human innovation sits on the sidelines, it does so of our own choosing, the robots are just an excuse we use to become complacent.

Now it is very possible and probable that people who own businesses seek a means to drive down the costs of labor, labor is expensive after all. But so what? All of those big nasty "profits" these companies get instead don't just sit in some Scrooge McDuck vault somewhere never again to see the light of day, they are typically reinvested elsewhere. These things that get reinvested into also provide sources of employment, and more hiring competition, placing checks and balances on the cost of labor.

Marxist theories might work great if humanity brought them to their logical conclusion and abolished all notions of individual personal property, until we can convince or coerce every single individual to give up any notion of "ownership" it remains a pipe dream with very little grounding in reality and generally counterproductive results.

sandsjames
05-24-2014, 09:24 PM
The funny thing is it really doesn't take an economist to parse it out. You know the old saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" isn't merely a cliche, there is some validity to the saying itself in the net effects of the policy. It is important to evaluate whether the net effects of the programs are beneficial not only over the short term, but also the long term. That's why I hold the belief you cannot base such decisions on an emotional (or even spiritual) approach because it will tend to muddle good sense. It is the tool of the demagogue after all. Just food for thought.

Again, I'm not talking about policy or what the government can do to help everyone. If there was a way to do it it would have been done by now. Even so, with the best economy and the best plan in the world, there will still be poor people. And those are the ones I'm concerned about. There is no political method that will be 100% successful.

AJBIGJ
05-24-2014, 09:38 PM
Again, I'm not talking about policy or what the government can do to help everyone. If there was a way to do it it would have been done by now. Even so, with the best economy and the best plan in the world, there will still be poor people. And those are the ones I'm concerned about. There is no political method that will be 100% successful.

Fair enough, and I'll buy that for a dollar. The biggest question that I think most people should be asking is what policies are the most and which are the least detrimental holistically towards the poor people? This of course is not a simple question with a simple answer. We all have heard the "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" saying, and we have to ask ourselves what we're willing to sacrifice to try to bring the unfortunate out of their present situation. Secondly, whether the means we use is a solution to the problem or just a delay on the one-way trip towards rock bottom.


The biggest question I like to ask is which entities are best at differentiating the former from the latter? Some people indeed will take a loan to get out of their situation and it will be enough to break the surface tension as well as pay dividends on the returns. Some others will inevitably become pauperous by nature with no concept of "temporary situation" in their heads. I would contend that providing the latter assistance doesn't improve a bad situation, it exacerbates it in a sense. So I would offer the assertion that the entity that can best sort the wheat from the chaff are the singular best entities to be providing the assistance. From reading your remarks thus far, I also believe you fairly well agree with such an assertion.

*Spoiler Alert! Socialism is not to the detriment of the super rich! Quite the opposite generally, and is also pretty good at preventing others from rising into that status from poverty.

So my big question to you is, should be whether or not this "epiphany" affects your politics or just your personal life and the way you live it? It's not exactly an epiphany if your change of heart is to the former and never the latter, at least "epiphany" isn't exactly the word I would use for it.

GeoDude
05-24-2014, 09:43 PM
Well in short, the problem that would exist when robots "takeover" in some Terminatoresque fashion or what-not, presuming they are not exterminating our entire species, the lack of creation of new jobs is not the result of anything but the lack of imagination of the people.


Unfortunately, the vast majority of human trades do not require imagination - they do not even require intelligence. Why employ a doctor with 8+ years of schooling, if his job could be automated?

The second problem with this premise is that innovation generally requires an affluent background. First off education is a must. The person who could cure cancer has probably been born many times over already - but most likely in the inner city somewhere, and will never be given the education for his/her intelligence and skills to bear fruition. Secondly, innovation requires leasure time. Bill Gates tinkered in his parents' garage on their dime - its unlikely he would have founded Microsoft if he was working 12 hours a day in a coal mine.

And despite all that - thousands of innovations due occur every day in America - but these innovations are not owned by the individual, but by the companies who employ them - meaning the inventor will never see a dime of the profits from his innovation. Worse still, these innovations are deliberately withheld from the public - our greatest victories against disease in the field of medicine occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries when the vast corporations of today did not exist. New vaccinations could be distributed for free.

Adam Smith, in his Theory of Moral Sentiment, stated that morality is a crucial part of making capitalism work. Unfortunately, we have more examples of capitalism without morality - such as American companies machine gunning or even bombing uncooperative workers. Or even today - a Texan fertilizer plant being blown to smithereens and taking half the town with it. The response? Texas is declared the most "business friendly" state and large corporations are flocking to it - because losing a few dozen workers once in a while to criminal carelessness is just a cost of doing business.

If we do find a cure for AIDS, do you really think it is going to be passed out for free to the millions of people who desperately need it - like we have with diseases in the past? Hardly, it'll most likely be given a six or even 8 figure price tag and reserved for rich celebrities who had a careless encounter with a dirty needle.


The problem with most Marxist theories is they treat "capitalism" as some kind of entity that has a devious underlying purpose. "Capitalism" is no more than the chosen actions of individuals, more a verb than a noun in this context. Individuals make the decisions of whether or not to trade one good for another because they feel the good they receive has more benefit than the one they provide as compensation. If human innovation sits on the sidelines, it does so of our own choosing, the robots are just an excuse we use to become complacent.

Now it is very possible and probable that people who own businesses seek a means to drive down the costs of labor, labor is expensive after all. But so what? All of those big nasty "profits" these companies get instead don't just sit in some Scrooge McDuck vault somewhere never again to see the light of day, they are typically reinvested elsewhere. These things that get reinvested into also provide sources of employment, and more hiring competition, placing checks and balances on the cost of labor.

Marxist theories might work great if humanity brought them to their logical conclusion and abolished all notions of individual personal property, until we can convince or coerce every single individual to give up any notion of "ownership" it remains a pipe dream with very little grounding in reality and generally counterproductive results.

Marxism is first and foremost a critique of capitalism. Though thousands upon thousands of pages have been written attacking Marxism - at the same time, Marxist thought has been adopted in almost every aspect of society. Perhaps the most extreme example of Marxism influencing American policy was the post-WWII reconstruction of Germany. Marxists in the Frankfurt School spelled out in detail how to seize control of an entire society and rebuild it from the foundations, making it impossible for Fascism to come back.

Even the American Republican party uses Marxist rhetoric on a daily basis -- for example "leeches" was originally a term used by Marx to condemn the capitalists for "growing fat" off the workers without contributing anything themselves - now Republicans have reversed the equation and claim the poor "leech" off the helpless rich people. Another example - "cultural imperialism" was a term used mostly by Marxists in reference to Western capitalist propaganda bombarding the developing world. Today, the American right bemoans "immoral" television programs bombarding Americans, and audiences overseas - essentially copy/pasting a Marxist argument with new labels.

The fatal flaw of capitalism is the assumption that infinite growth can be achieved with finite resources - hence why capitalist systems have consistently crashed again and again throughout the years when their governments fail to enforce a sensible macro-economic policy. Countries that have successfully navigated through economic disasters are those that have allowed capitalism to work unfettered in micro-economics, but enforced a strong macro-economic policy.

Think of it this way - how well would the military work if there were no generals, if every unit acted as they pleased with no direction whatsoever? The consequences would likely be equally disastrous as micromanagement. The key is finding a happy balance between freedom and direction.

sandsjames
05-24-2014, 10:13 PM
So my big question to you is, should be whether or not this "epiphany" affects your politics or just your personal life and the way you live it? It's not exactly an epiphany if your change of heart is to the former and never the latter, at least "epiphany" isn't exactly the word I would use for it.

It's both. As I mentioned, I will be voting for those who support the policies that give the most aide to those in need of it.

AJBIGJ
05-24-2014, 10:32 PM
It's both. As I mentioned, I will be voting for those who support the policies that give the most aide to those in need of it.

Sounds pretty arbitrary to me, I'm sure there are plenty of politicians willing to make the claim that the legislation they propose will accomplish that, it doesn't necessarily make it the case however. Politicians seem to have a knack for labeling a piece of legislation the "Rose" act when in fact it is merely a well-dressed turd.

TJMAC77SP
05-24-2014, 10:32 PM
Entitlement programs are also paid for by taxes yes? If I become unemployed, am I taking Rizzo's money by claiming UI? If I break my back, am I stealing from Rizzo by claiming medicare and social security? Rizzo's logic is doubly flawed because he himself benefits from public funding, even if he is unaware of it.

But in one type of program the recipient pays into the fund and in the other it is an non participatory entitlement. I think it disingenuous to lump them all together, despite the USGs policy of doing so for whatever reasons. I wasn't addressing Rizzo's logic or lack of same, merely your comparing apples and oranges

AJBIGJ
05-24-2014, 11:15 PM
1. Unfortunately, the vast majority of human trades do not require imagination

2. The second problem with this premise is that innovation generally requires an affluent background.

3. And despite all that - thousands of innovations due occur every day in America

4. Adam Smith, in his Theory of Moral Sentiment, stated that morality is a crucial part of making capitalism work.

5. If we do find a cure for AIDS, do you really think it is going to be passed out for free to the millions of people who desperately need it - like we have with diseases in the past?

6. Marxism is first and foremost a critique of capitalism.

7. Even the American Republican party uses Marxist rhetoric on a daily basis

8. The fatal flaw of capitalism is the assumption that infinite growth can be achieved with finite resources -

9. Think of it this way - how well would the military work if there were no generals, if every unit acted as they pleased with no direction whatsoever?

Numbered and bulleted to make things more concise and less a wall of words:

1. Agreed, and who even says medical practitioners have to be humans? But even if we replaced doctors with automatons, what are some other things that individuals with that expertise could apply their skills towards?
This is why the Luddite fallacy is indeed considered a "fallacy" rather than simply a "principle". Human imagination has a demonstrated capability of being fairly boundless, at least thus far. When I feel confident we've learned everything there is to be learned I will also be concerned that there is absolutely nothing left for us to do. I'd be amazed if we've even accomplished a significant fraction of that in the holistic sense.

2. On the contrary, it requires nothing of the sort. Bill Gates was freed to invent Microsoft because he hasn't had to spend 12 hours a day subsistence farming. Technology made that happen. Interestingly enough, a very sizable portion of our most significant entrepreneurs started neither as affluent individuals nor came from exceptional education.

3. Agree with the first statement, but if they do withold information, for how long? I don't imagine it can be suppressed indefinitely, things of such significance have an interesting knack for getting exposed on their own. Those who withold such information do so to their detriment, and others who offer these innovations get the benefit. Hence the crucial element of competition involved in making the process effectual.

4. Well, I would agree to the extent that he felt morality was an important part of fair exchange, he also had a little bit to say towards the concepts of "Merit and Demerit", and some stuff of the like. Without reciting the whole friggin thing in a MTF post. There are things known as "consequences", socially and otherwise, which will eventually result from consistent immoral behavior, governance is superfluous to this.

5. Until discovered, when the cat's out of the bag the individuals witholding such things get nothing and even punished for it. Those who release it to the public get the benefit. Again, competition is what is truly crucial to a capitalistic society (aka any society which exchanges currency for goods and services).

6. I agree wholeheartedly with this assertion, which roughly equates to intellectual whining when we factor in there is very little substantive behind the postulates. The fact that a few nations decided to burden themselves with some of them does not make it a sudden success story.

7. So what? How it's used is of a little importance here. I'm not myself exactly a proponent of all things politically "right" in America, but I do think it's important to leave their contextual usage in consideration.

8. An absurd assertion if you'll pardon me, it is neither a "fatal" flaw nor is it based on a factual premise. We have nothing but "capitalist systems" as far as I'm aware (they all use capital) and they crash because a capitalistic environment is designed to let people fail if they fail to provide consistently competitive goods and services within the overall market niche they occupy. As to the "strong macro-economic policy" assertion. Sometimes yes sometimes no. Post Weimar Republic Germany had a very strong macro-economic policy, it seemed to work for a while. Post-USSR Russia did not, at least relative to what they had previously, yet they seem to have our collective knickers in a bunch in Ukraine presently. Economies rise and fall in spite of the macro-economic policies a nation employs, only rarely because of them.

9. Good question, and a good argument for the US Constitution supporting an established military as a role for a legitimate government. Hypothetically could we fight a war with a bunch of Blackwaters and other militias? Heck, arguably that level of warfare played a sizable role in initially establishing our freedom from the British. I will also say, Al Quaeda seems to have figured out how to make it pretty effective for their own purposes. I will have to concede this point only because I agree there is a legitimate role for government and governance in a limited military establishment. Since by itself a military is an instrument of force it really doesn't meet the criteria of a purist anarcho-capitalist's utopia. This is also a major reason I am no anarchist.

sandsjames
05-25-2014, 01:13 AM
Sounds pretty arbitrary to me, I'm sure there are plenty of politicians willing to make the claim that the legislation they propose will accomplish that, it doesn't necessarily make it the case however. Politicians seem to have a knack for labeling a piece of legislation the "Rose" act when in fact it is merely a well-dressed turd.


Absolutely. No matter how much any party claims they want to help, they do not have the capability. That's why we can only do the best we can, outside of the government, to do our part.

Rizzo77
05-25-2014, 03:15 AM
Fair enough. So don't send any of your kids to public schools, don't use any government funded roads, don't ever collect any kind of UI or social security, don't ever call the police or fire department, and don't use tap water or electricity. If you use any of the above listed services, you are "taking".
You have written a specious post, with fallacious reasoning. I PAY. I will fucking use all of those things, because I FUCKING PAY FOR THEM.

GeoDude
05-25-2014, 04:36 AM
You have written a specious post, with fallacious reasoning. I PAY. I will fucking use all of those things, because I FUCKING PAY FOR THEM.

Then maybe you shouldn't throw stones at other people for using them. It would be completely hilarious if you had some bad luck later in life and you were forced to use the same programs that you viciously condemn others for using. In fact if that happens please let me know because I'll get a good laugh out of it.

Capt Alfredo
05-25-2014, 03:12 PM
You have written a specious post, with fallacious reasoning. I PAY. I will fucking use all of those things, because I FUCKING PAY FOR THEM.

I'm going to guess if you're posting on a military-related site that you don't pay your share of what you take/use. Yes, you pay, but your piddly couple of thousand (or more) in taxes every year does not fully fund the cost to society of what you consume. It's really no different.

TJMAC77SP
05-25-2014, 05:20 PM
I'm going to guess if you're posting on a military-related site that you don't pay your share of what you take/use. Yes, you pay, but your piddly couple of thousand (or more) in taxes every year does not fully fund the cost to society of what you consume. It's really no different.

What would you consider he 'takes' as opposed to a civilian? I assume that is the comparison you are inferring.

Capt Alfredo
05-25-2014, 07:02 PM
What would you consider he 'takes' as opposed to a civilian? I assume that is the comparison you are inferring.

I'm not "inferring" anything. His comment was that he's entitled to every service he receives because he pays taxes. My point is that he's surely not paying into the system as much as he's deriving from those services he "pays" for. Has nothing to do with being a civilian or not. Since no one is rich in the military, especially not someone who has time to post here, I can fairly accurately assume that he's not one of the people paying 100K or more in taxes each year. I fully acknowledge that my family and I derive far more benefit in kind from the government than I pay in, even as an O-4. So the freeloading is a matter of degree, leading me to conclude, much like (paraphrase) Carlin's observation, that someone who pays less than him in taxes is a moocher and someone who pays more...

GeoDude
05-26-2014, 03:21 PM
1) Maybe they'll have the "imagination" to pull a job from thin air. Or maybe they'll be yet another demographic to be condemned as "moochers" by Fox News.

2) I'm sure his millionaire parents didn't hurt either though.

3) My point was that today most innovations today are not owned by the innovator - his innovations are owned by the company that the innovator himself is owned by.

4) "Consequences" are for poor people. If you're rich - by all means get that 6th DUI, slap around your wife, snort coke, and collapse the world economy. Because you won't be held accountable for it. Or at least in America you won't be.

5) Go to an American hospital and buy some snake antivenom, or chemo therapy - then come back and tell me about the "wonders of the free market. Again I repeat my statement - if we cured AIDS, the poor would never see it - the price would likely be deliberately kept at astronomically high levels, like previous medical breakthrough in recent history.

6) I would hardly call the most influential economic movement in history - not to mention the largest ideological war in all of history - "intellectual whining", but I digress.

7) An idea can be considered truly influential when even the enemy has adopted it.

8) It is a fatal flaw, as there is no way under traditional capitalism to fix the crash. The business sector is destroyed and tens of millions starve. Keynesian Economics provided the cure - and every single nation state on the planet has adopted that idea - no matter how loud certain American conservatives scream about it.

9) Wasn't exactly my point. My point is that any organization needs some form of central direction.

TJMAC77SP
05-26-2014, 04:15 PM
I'm not "inferring" anything. His comment was that he's entitled to every service he receives because he pays taxes. My point is that he's surely not paying into the system as much as he's deriving from those services he "pays" for. Has nothing to do with being a civilian or not. Since no one is rich in the military, especially not someone who has time to post here, I can fairly accurately assume that he's not one of the people paying 100K or more in taxes each year. I fully acknowledge that my family and I derive far more benefit in kind from the government than I pay in, even as an O-4. So the freeloading is a matter of degree, leading me to conclude, much like (paraphrase) Carlin's observation, that someone who pays less than him in taxes is a moocher and someone who pays more...

I am sincerely confused as to what he would be receiving in the way of government benefits that is more than his share of taxes. Are you speaking strictly of public education, fire/police protection or other benefits?

Rizzo’s comments were aimed at GeoDude’s specious use of participatory programs as examples of entitlement programs which everyone derives benefits from and lumping them with non-participatory programs which are used by a minority and are subject to continuing abuse. It is an apples and oranges comparison and without merit.

BENDER56
05-26-2014, 05:55 PM
Regardless of one's feelings on social safety nets - what will happen when the vast majority of jobs are replaced by machines? ...

Ooh, I know the answer to this one.

Back in the '60s we learned that when everything became automated, men would sit in an easy chair all day with their newspapers and smoke their pipes. Their family members would sit at their feet absorbing their wisdom. And Rosie the Robot would bring them all cold beverages on a tray.

It's gonna be great. I can't wait.

Oh, and we're all gonna have flying cars and jetpacks.

garhkal
05-26-2014, 07:07 PM
I am a little puzzled by the gloating over SJ's change of heart. I for one don't remember him ever saying that entitlement programs should not be in existence. His only change in stance now seems to be forgiving of those low life's who cheat the system (I am still of a stone heart in that regard).

I do remember however many times when people who have cited wastes and abuses in these programs were labeled as wanting to get rid of them thus putting words into their mouths. Seems that hasn't changed.

Agreed. Often i see, whether its here or elsewhere, that those who clamber for the fraudsters and cheats to be smacked along with those in charge for allowing the cheating to exist, as being flat out against the programs. As for me, while i respect SJ's POV i disagree with it. Saying you would rather a thousand cheat the system, just so long as one deserved person gets helped is imo like saying you are ok with a thousand criminals getting away with their crime just as long as we don't punish one innocent.

IMO that is what the fraudsters look for in others. A willingness to LET them keep doing what they do, just as long as it does not hurt those who actually need the help.


In my small city, we have a bond measure on the ballot to raise $29 million by issuing five-year bonds. The yearly tax increase on me would be about $450 a year to pay off the bond but that's something I'm, a person without any children, am willing to do because it benefits the children and also society as a whole by educating those who will be the doctors, lawyers, nurses, auto mechanics, soldiers/sailors/airmen, etc. of the future.

I am single/no kids as well, but it does not mean i am ok getting taxed to help those WITH kids. That's why i am always against increasing property taxes for 'schools'.


So, I'm of mixed feelings on social programs. There's always going to be a need and there's always going to be contention over whether the people that use them, truly need them; but I believe that as a human, not as a Christian, that we should help others in need. Certainly doesn't mean I'm open for writing a blank check to those who say they are in need, but helping those that need it is certainly a worthwhile endevor.

Me neither danny. I would much rather that people help their neighbors out of choice, than be forced to by laws/taxes.


Current programs do piss me off a bit though. There are too many in number that are too small in scale. Many fractured programs competeing for their 15 minutes rather than focusing on those in need. Highest on my BS list is, and will always be, welfare. Social security, disability, etc, etc, etc offer the same benefit, but without writing a free check to sit on your ass or have 25 kids.

Some may say it's harsh, but perhaps we can give those who are on welfare those invitro devices to prevent pregnancy, so we can dispense with the welfare mom popping out kid after kid to increase the amt of cash she gets from uncle sam.



Just as a FYI, I do identify as a Dem, just tend not to follow the company line on social programs.

Good for you in not being a 'yes man' to the company line.



The biggest question I like to ask is which entities are best at differentiating the former from the latter? Some people indeed will take a loan to get out of their situation and it will be enough to break the surface tension as well as pay dividends on the returns. Some others will inevitably become pauperous by nature with no concept of "temporary situation" in their heads. I would contend that providing the latter assistance doesn't improve a bad situation, it exacerbates it in a sense.

Exactly. No matter what stats you go by to try and show this or that program works best, you are always going to get skewed results due to those loafers on any system the govt has.



Adam Smith, in his Theory of Moral Sentiment, stated that morality is a crucial part of making capitalism work. Unfortunately, we have more examples of capitalism without morality - such as American companies machine gunning or even bombing uncooperative workers. Or even today - a Texan fertilizer plant being blown to smithereens and taking half the town with it. The response? Texas is declared the most "business friendly" state and large corporations are flocking to it - because losing a few dozen workers once in a while to criminal carelessness is just a cost of doing business.

If we do find a cure for AIDS, do you really think it is going to be passed out for free to the millions of people who desperately need it - like we have with diseases in the past? Hardly, it'll most likely be given a six or even 8 figure price tag and reserved for rich celebrities who had a careless encounter with a dirty needle.

Great points Geodude. With the current system of capitalism it IS more economical beneficial to companies to TREAT a disease than cure it. Cure it an no one needs your products after a while. Treat it and they need it for life. Which is why i feel some diseases will never get cured.

sandsjames
05-26-2014, 07:30 PM
garhkal...Our legal system is designed to do just as you said. That's why the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But that's beside the point. A whole different discussion.

And I'd prefer that nobody cheat the system. However, that is unavoidable, and to take away from those who need it in order to keep those who cheat it is just hurting those in need.

The two best case would be 1. No poor people 2. Nobody cheat the system. Those two things will never happen.

I didn't want to relate this thread to politics but it seems unavoidable. So...I pay taxes. My tax rate has not increased/decrease a noticeable amount in the last 20 years so, honestly, I don't feel like my tax money is being wasted no matter where it goes. Now, if we actually had a say in where the money went there might be a difference. But we don't, and never will.

garhkal
05-27-2014, 06:47 AM
While the legal system is that way currently, i dislike it just as much as i dislike the current way we handle fraud. Letting 1000s get away with it just cause we don't want to punish the needy.

CrustySMSgt
05-29-2014, 04:22 PM
Does this mean that I will be giving away all my belongings and all my time to charity? No. I'm still a hypocrytical Christian. But hopefully it means that, in the future, I will pay closer attention to the state of peoples lives and peoples situations and be more understanding.

I'm one of those who have become extremely cynical about religion as I get older, but I respect those who do their best to live by what they believe. Good on you for stepping up and making an effort to stand up for what you believe. It is those who make no effort at all, yet use religion as ammo to judge others, which is pretty much the opposite of what you're supposed to do that give it all a bad name.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-07-2014, 01:03 AM
Ooh, I know the answer to this one.

Back in the '60s we learned that when everything became automated, men would sit in an easy chair all day with their newspapers and smoke their pipes. Their family members would sit at their feet absorbing their wisdom. And Rosie the Robot would bring them all cold beverages on a tray.

It's gonna be great. I can't wait.

Oh, and we're all gonna have flying cars and jetpacks.

There were absolutely zero minorities and no gays on the Jetsons; I'm sure that is going to make a lot of the Fox News viewership happy.

Fox News, not racist, but #1 with racists.

BENDER56
06-07-2014, 02:08 AM
While the legal system is that way currently, i dislike it just as much as i dislike the current way we handle fraud. Letting 1000s get away with it just cause we don't want to punish the needy.

You think the needy should be punished?!

BENDER56
06-07-2014, 02:13 AM
There were absolutely zero minorities and no gays on the Jetsons ...

How do you know there will be any in the future of robots, flying cars and jetpacks?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-07-2014, 04:24 AM
How do you know there will be any in the future of robots, flying cars and jetpacks?

It was just a dumb Hanna Barberra cartoon, the same guys who created that other shitty 1960s cartoon, the Flintstones.

Which was also devoid of minorities, unless you count that stupid green Martian on the Flintstones... Worst cartoon ever.


http://youtu.be/cb4Y0SZE3E8

TJMAC77SP
06-07-2014, 04:29 AM
It was just a dumb Hanna Barberra cartoon, the same guys who created that other shitty 1960s cartoon, the Flintstones.

Which was also devoid of minorities, unless you count that stupid green Martian on the Flintstones... Worst cartoon ever.

Well, THIS is certainly worth discussing............particularly for the opportunity to gratuitously trash FNC

Absinthe Anecdote
06-07-2014, 04:40 AM
Well, THIS is certainly worth discussing............particularly for the opportunity to gratuitously trash FNC

Why you have Fred as your avatar, I'll never know. He sucks, not funny at all and as the bouncer in that clip I just posted says, he is the most out of date douche bag I've ever seen.

I got that tag line about FNC from a Family Guy episode, now that is a good cartoon.

garhkal
06-07-2014, 06:19 AM
You think the needy should be punished?!

Personally i would rather the needy get help, but only in so much as they need to be back on their 2 feet, NOT living of it as a life style, while at the same time the scammers get punished.

sandsjames
06-07-2014, 11:14 AM
Personally i would rather the needy get help, but only in so much as they need to be back on their 2 feet, NOT living of it as a life style, while at the same time the scammers get punished.

How would you punish them? Jail? That would cost more than welfare, especially if they have kids that have to go into the system.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-07-2014, 01:03 PM
How would you punish them? Jail? That would cost more than welfare, especially if they have kids that have to go into the system.

I vote for bare butt spankings in the town square.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-07-2014, 03:29 PM
It was just a dumb Hanna Barberra cartoon, the same guys who created that other shitty 1960s cartoon, the Flintstones.

Which was also devoid of minorities, unless you count that stupid green Martian on the Flintstones... Worst cartoon ever.


http://youtu.be/cb4Y0SZE3E8

That's ok because BET has more than made up for these 'racist' 60's cartoons.

garhkal
06-07-2014, 06:26 PM
How would you punish them? Jail? That would cost more than welfare, especially if they have kids that have to go into the system.

So cause it would cost more to jail them, lets not bother punishing them? Is that your answer SJ?

As for how i would like to. How's about going with something that the English used to do. Stocks (where they are held with their hands and arms in that device). Publically SHAME them.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-07-2014, 07:01 PM
So cause it would cost more to jail them, lets not bother punishing them? Is that your answer SJ?

As for how i would like to. How's about going with something that the English used to do. Stocks (where they are held with their hands and arms in that device). Publically SHAME them.

That's kind of a dumb idea; plus, you know that would not be approved by any state legislature in the county, let alone the Congress.

Here is a more practical idea, just for you. You should move to the top of a mountain were there are no scammers or anyone else.

You could live happily up there all by yourself; down below in the valley would be all the people who are scamming welfare dollars and food stamps.

You could sit up there on your mountain top perch and scowl in disapproval at them, and once a year at Christmas, you can sneak down the mountain and steal all their presents and government cheese.

sandsjames
06-07-2014, 08:47 PM
So cause it would cost more to jail them, lets not bother punishing them? Is that your answer SJ?

As for how i would like to. How's about going with something that the English used to do. Stocks (where they are held with their hands and arms in that device). Publically SHAME them.

The point was made because of arguments about how much of your tax payer dollars are being wasted. So now we stick them in jail which also means that not only does that cost more but the cost of their children being in the system is also more expensive. So it's either about wasting money or it's not.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-07-2014, 09:29 PM
The point was made because of arguments about how much of your tax payer dollars are being wasted. So now we stick them in jail which also means that not only does that cost more but the cost of their children being in the system is also more expensive. So it's either about wasting money or it's not.

I would say the focus should be on managing the system better to prevent fraud and waste from occurring.

Sounds like Garkhal wants to focus on punishing people and shaming them.

He actually advocated putting them in stockades.

He's being childish in my opinion, and I wouldn't be surprised if he also complains about the government being too big and powerful.

BENDER56
06-07-2014, 10:04 PM
How would you punish them? Jail? That would cost more than welfare, especially if they have kids that have to go into the system.

How 'bout we draft them into the military? Or conscript them into national service rebuilding our failing infrastructure?

BENDER56
06-07-2014, 10:39 PM
It was just a dumb Hanna Barberra cartoon, the same guys who created that other shitty 1960s cartoon, the Flintstones.

Which was also devoid of minorities, unless you count that stupid green Martian on the Flintstones... Worst cartoon ever.

It's nothing more than a product of its time, dude. (In fact, it was an acknowledged homage -- read; blatant rip-off -- of "The Honeymooners.")

In hindsight, no, it wasn't all that funny. But there's gonna be lots of stuff from today's times that we think is hilarious that the all-white people in the future are going to see as lame-assed.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-07-2014, 11:12 PM
It's nothing more than a product of its time, dude. (In fact, it was an acknowledged homage -- read; blatant rip-off -- of "The Honeymooners.")

In hindsight, no, it wasn't all that funny. But there's gonna be lots of stuff from today's times that we think is hilarious that the all-white people in the future are going to see as lame-assed.

Shhhh!

You are throwing too much logic on the conversation. Can't you tell that I'm trying to rattle TJMAC77SP's cage?

Seriously though, even when I was a little kid in the 1970's I thought the Flintstones was the worst cartoon that I'd ever seen. It just plain sucked, as did all the Hanna & Barberra cartoons, with the exception of Tom & Jerry.

If you want an example of it being a product of its time, check out Fred & Barney in this cigarette commercial.

It is down right creepy from today's perspective.


http://youtu.be/FqdTBDkUEEQ

garhkal
06-08-2014, 05:23 AM
I would say the focus should be on managing the system better to prevent fraud and waste from occurring.

Sounds like Garkhal wants to focus on punishing people and shaming them.

He actually advocated putting them in stockades.


While i too would like the system to be better managed so fraud happens less/is caught more often, i still feel punishment should happen to those who DO fraud it. Otherwise why tell people NOPE, don't defraud us.?

sandsjames
06-08-2014, 11:28 AM
How 'bout we draft them into the military? Because we're kicking out people who want to be there. Plus, what's the motivation for them to put any effort into it? Would they care if they didn't meet the standards?


Or conscript them into national service rebuilding our failing infrastructure?

I wouldn't mind seeing those physically and mentally capable of working to be required to do some form of community service.

Also some skills training programs would be beneficial.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-08-2014, 12:11 PM
While i too would like the system to be better managed so fraud happens less/is caught more often, i still feel punishment should happen to those who DO fraud it. Otherwise why tell people NOPE, don't defraud us.?

I seriously doubt food stamp and welfare fraud is the problem you are making it out to be. Besides there are already laws on the books for fraud, and the punishment ranges from jail time to fines.

The fact that you are advocating shaming people in stocks, indicates that you have some other axe to grind.

I can't help but to think it is some sort of racial or ethnic bias that is really fueling your anger.

BENDER56
06-08-2014, 07:05 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing those physically and mentally capable of working to be required to do some form of community service.

I was being semi-flippant in my previous reply, but now that I think of it it's not such a bad idea. (Works projects -- not the military one.)

These people would be earning a paycheck and their subsequent spending would contribute to the GNP. Hell, it might even start to regenerate a middle class in America.

And we could give the project a strong Conservative/Republican-sounding name, like the "Works Progress Administration."

Absinthe Anecdote
06-08-2014, 07:18 PM
I was being semi-flippant in my previous reply, but now that I think of it it's not such a bad idea. (Works projects -- not the military one.)

These people would be earning a paycheck and their subsequent spending would contribute to the GNP. Hell, it might even start to regenerate a middle class in America.

And we could give the project a strong Conservative/Republican-sounding name, like the "Works Progress Administration."

LOL!

Better not fuck with one of the left's iconic programs like FDR's WPA, but then again, why not claim it for the right?

The GOP ended slavery and gave women the right to vote, but the left claims to be the true champions of equality.

garhkal
06-08-2014, 07:36 PM
Because we're kicking out people who want to be there. Plus, what's the motivation for them to put any effort into it? Would they care if they didn't meet the standards?


Good point. Pushing illegals, welfare frauds etc to do mil service is imo doing a Disservice to those who are IN, but are being 'early outted' for manning reasons.



I wouldn't mind seeing those physically and mentally capable of working to be required to do some form of community service.

Also some skills training programs would be beneficial.

How's about use them in clean up efforts after disasters, or help building more prisons.


I seriously doubt food stamp and welfare fraud is the problem you are making it out to be. Besides there are already laws on the books for fraud, and the punishment ranges from jail time to fines.

There is supposed to be those laws. But how often have you heard of it being applied? When was the last time you heard of a fraudster going to jail?

BENDER56
06-08-2014, 07:40 PM
Seriously though, even when I was a little kid in the 1970's I thought the Flintstones was the worst cartoon that I'd ever seen. It just plain sucked, as did all the Hanna & Barberra cartoons, with the exception of Tom & Jerry.

Well, I was going to correct you by pointing out that Tom and Jerry was an MGM cartoon, not H&B, but then I googled it. Turns out H&B were the MGM animators responsible for Tom and Jerry from 1940 - 1957. Huh. Did not know that. I always thought it was Tex Avery who was behind Tom and Jerry.

I never liked the H&B studio cartoons because they used the limited animation technique. Also their writing was lame -- hackneyed jokes that would get a laugh from kids hearing them for the first time. Hell, I think they even had a laugh track. But I did watch their stuff, because ... that's what kids did on Saturday morning in the '60s -- watched cartoons. They were responsible for a whole stable of characters like Quick Draw McGraw, Huckleberry Hound, Snagglepuss, Auggie Daddy and Auggie Doggie (a Jimmy Durante homage/rip-off), Yogi Bear, Top Cat, and Jonny Quest (which I did like).

The Flintstones played much better in the '60s. Also, if you were watching it in the '70s, you might not have been watching the original prime-time episodes but the really, really crappy episodes made in the '70s.

Me, I was a Warner Brothers and Jay Ward Productions aficionado all the way. But not the post-Chuck Jones Warner Brothers crap. Jay Ward's animation was horrible, but their writing was awesome.

Today, if people ask me what my favorite cartoon is, I tell them, "The Itchy and Scratchy Show."

Absinthe Anecdote
06-08-2014, 08:06 PM
Well, I was going to correct you by pointing out that Tom and Jerry was an MGM cartoon, not H&B, but then I googled it. Turns out H&B were the MGM animators responsible for Tom and Jerry from 1940 - 1957. Huh. Did not know that. I always thought it was Tex Avery who was behind Tom and Jerry.

I never liked the H&B studio cartoons because they used the limited animation technique. Also their writing was lame -- hackneyed jokes that would get a laugh from kids hearing them for the first time. Hell, I think they even had a laugh track. But I did watch their stuff, because ... that's what kids did on Saturday morning in the '60s -- watched cartoons. They were responsible for a whole stable of characters like Quick Draw McGraw, Huckleberry Hound, Snagglepuss, Auggie Daddy and Auggie Doggie (a Jimmy Durante homage/rip-off), Yogi Bear, Top Cat, and Jonny Quest (which I did like).

The Flintstones played much better in the '60s. Also, if you were watching it in the '70s, you might not have been watching the original prime-time episodes but the really, really crappy episodes made in the '70s.

Me, I was a Warner Brothers and Jay Ward Productions aficionado all the way. But not the post-Chuck Jones Warner Brothers crap. Jay Ward's animation was horrible, but their writing was awesome.

Today, if people ask me what my favorite cartoon is, I tell them, "The Itchy and Scratchy Show."

I'm in agreement with you on this entirely. I think the difference between the Tom & Jerry cartoon and the rest of the garbage that H&B put out was that Tom & Jerry was originally produced to be shown in theaters prior to MGM films. Just like all the great Looney Tunes cartoons were produced to be shown prior to WB films.

All that other H&B garbage was made specifically for TV.

The Simpsons were truly great, but they have been eclipsed by the Family Guy in recent years. I'm a big fan of Seth MacFarlane and I'm glad to see him getting into films. I thought Ted was awesome and I'm looking forward to his new film, A Million Ways to Die in the West.

BENDER56
06-08-2014, 08:16 PM
I'm in agreement with you on this entirely. I think the difference between the Tom & Jerry cartoon and the rest of the garbage that H&B put out was that Tom & Jerry was originally produced to be shown in theaters prior to MGM films. Just like all the great Looney Tunes cartoons were produced to be shown prior to WB films.

All that other H&B garbage was made specifically for TV.

The Simpsons were truly great, but they have been eclipsed by the Family Guy in recent years. I'm a big fan of Seth MacFarlane and I'm glad to see him getting into films. I thought Ted was awesome and I'm looking forward to his new film, A Million Ways to Die in the West.

Yeah, as much as I fondly recall those old MGM and WB cartoons, they pale in comparison to modern cartoons; both the new television cartoons and the new computer-generated movies. The Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama, South Park. Even Beavis and Butthead and Ren and Stimpy. And how do you even begin to compare them to modern Pixar and Disney Movies?

BENDER56
06-08-2014, 08:24 PM
... or help building more prisons.

NOOOOOooooooooo!!!!!

What the hell, dude?! We need to stop criminalizing everything people do and stop locking them up.

If anything, maybe we could pay the jobless to tear down some prisons.




Oh, wait ... were you being sarcastic? If so, never mind.

sandsjames
06-08-2014, 10:19 PM
Hanna Barbara was awesome. Loved most of their stuff, especially the Wacky Races.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-08-2014, 10:39 PM
Hanna Barbara was awesome. Loved most of their stuff, especially the Wacky Races.

Oh STFU!

I know you are just saying that to get a rise out of me. There is no way in hell you liked the wacky races or whatever that was called. Laff Olympics or some shit.

I'll give you credit for pretending to like that shit because you knew it would bother me.

Nice try.

TJMAC77SP
06-09-2014, 01:03 AM
Oh STFU!

I know you are just saying that to get a rise out of me. There is no way in hell you liked the wacky races or whatever that was called. Laff Olympics or some shit.

I'll give you credit for pretending to like that shit because you knew it would bother me.

Nice try.

I put him up to it.

garhkal
06-09-2014, 05:15 AM
NOOOOOooooooooo!!!!!

What the hell, dude?! We need to stop criminalizing everything people do and stop locking them up.

If anything, maybe we could pay the jobless to tear down some prisons.


Oh, wait ... were you being sarcastic? If so, never mind.

Nope. WE are always hearing how overcrowded prisons are. So build more!

sandsjames
06-09-2014, 10:26 AM
Oh STFU!

I know you are just saying that to get a rise out of me. There is no way in hell you liked the wacky races or whatever that was called. Laff Olympics or some shit.

I'll give you credit for pretending to like that shit because you knew it would bother me.

Nice try.

Whatever dude...How could a young pre-teen not like a cartoon with so many sexual references?

Penelope Pitstop driving the Compact Pussycat? Nothing better than a compact pussycat
Peter Perfect
Sgt Blast
Dick Dastardly

It's like a porno cast.

Rusty Jones
06-09-2014, 10:37 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing those physically and mentally capable of working to be required to do some form of community service.

Easier said than done.

For one, I'm 100% against shaming. Contrary to what people like WJ5 may think, the lot of those on welfare is not an easy one. If the only stressor in his life is his job, he's a lucky guy.

I'm told that some countries actually do have "work" (the kind that engenders shame) for people on welfare, such as picking up big rocks and moving them back and forth and other types non-valuable labor. Might be urban myth, but the only purpose that non-valuable labor for welfare recipients would serve is to placate people like garhkal. It would serve absolutely NO other purpose.

Or... we could actually find valuable work for them to do. But then again... if such work did exist, then wouldn't people have already been hired to do it in the first place?


I seriously doubt food stamp and welfare fraud is the problem you are making it out to be. Besides there are already laws on the books for fraud, and the punishment ranges from jail time to fines.

The fact that you are advocating shaming people in stocks, indicates that you have some other axe to grind.

I can't help but to think it is some sort of racial or ethnic bias that is really fueling your anger.

My thoughts, almost exactly. The racial or ethnic bias may or may not be a factor, but one thing certainly is... as I pointed out with the Apartheid example, the lower the unenlightened one is on the social ladder, the more intense his hatred is for the people beneath him.

I can't help but notice, for example, whenever I see an article on my facebook feed about jails, the prison system, someone being arrested or convicted of a crime, etc, etc... the people who chant "crucify him" the loudest... you can click on their facebook profiles, and the only thing they've ever achieved in their pathetic lives is that they've never been prison. Hence why they're so grateful that they have someone to look down on. Thank gawd for people who commit crimes, because what would these people do with themselves otherwise.

In addition to criminals, of course, the exact same thing can be said for people on welfare. I don't see physicians and chemists trashing people on welfare. It's mostly lower working class people who do.


LOL!

Better not fuck with one of the left's iconic programs like FDR's WPA, but then again, why not claim it for the right?

The GOP ended slavery and gave women the right to vote, but the left claims to be the true champions of equality.

I love how the GOP uses that argument, but thinks people aren't aware of the Southern Strategy that transformed their party after that.


There is supposed to be those laws. But how often have you heard of it being applied? When was the last time you heard of a fraudster going to jail?

A quick Google search shows up plenty of instances:

https://www.google.com/search?q=jail+%22welfare+fraud%22&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=jail+%22welfare+fraud%22&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3...32629.32863.0.33097.4.4.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0. ...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..4.0.0.SOs5aeHr-YM

However, welfare fraud is generally local news material, so you're not going to know about it if it's not happening in your area.


NOOOOOooooooooo!!!!!

What the hell, dude?! We need to stop criminalizing everything people do and stop locking them up.

If anything, maybe we could pay the jobless to tear down some prisons.

My thoughts exactly.

sandsjames
06-09-2014, 10:57 AM
Or... we could actually find valuable work for them to do. But then again... if such work did exist, then wouldn't people have already been hired to do it in the first place? Very true. Though there are always places that are looking for volunteers. Soup kitchens, animal shelters, etc, that people aren't getting paid for but are always looking for someone. Not only would this, IMO, get rid of the stigma that people are cruising by on welfare, but it could also help with confidence, networking, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of non degrading volunteer positions out there.

Rusty Jones
06-09-2014, 11:30 AM
Very true. Though there are always places that are looking for volunteers. Soup kitchens, animal shelters, etc, that people aren't getting paid for but are always looking for someone. Not only would this, IMO, get rid of the stigma that people are cruising by on welfare, but it could also help with confidence, networking, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of non degrading volunteer positions out there.

When I was a child in Connecticut, if I recall correctly, they actually required this of adult males on welfare. That was back in the day, before our current genderless society, where people were fully aware that there were BOTH ups AND downs to being either sex and had no problem with it.

As a child, when I lived in the projects, I do remember people there who did "volunteer" work. Contrary to what WJ5 thinks, the residents DO pay rent... but it's very low rent, and it's based on income. Residents who did work like maintence, janitoral, mowing lawns, etc, were allowed to live there with their rent either significantly reduced or even elimintated based on what kind of work they did and what their unreduced rent was.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-09-2014, 01:23 PM
My thoughts, almost exactly. The racial or ethnic bias may or may not be a factor, but one thing certainly is... as I pointed out with the Apartheid example, the lower the unenlightened one is on the social ladder, the more intense his hatred is for the people beneath him.

I can't help but notice, for example, whenever I see an article on my facebook feed about jails, the prison system, someone being arrested or convicted of a crime, etc, etc... the people who chant "crucify him" the loudest... you can click on their facebook profiles, and the only thing they've ever achieved in their pathetic lives is that they've never been prison. Hence why they're so grateful that they have someone to look down on. Thank gawd for people who commit crimes, because what would these people do with themselves otherwise.

In addition to criminals, of course, the exact same thing can be said for people on welfare. I don't see physicians and chemists trashing people on welfare. It's mostly lower working class people who do.

I think you are on to something here.

Having contempt for those one step below you on the social ladder is a way to validate one's self worth.

Perhaps, that is also a factor in how racial and ethnic biases form in the first place?

People feel the need to put their little tribe above another in their own mind. What starts out as a personal need for self-worth gets transformed into racism and prejudice.

Perhaps we could even link it to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs?

While Maslow has been somewhat discredited, I still think he got a lot of things right with his hierarchy of needs.

If one has fulfilled their security needs of safety and shelter, the next step is belonging.

What easier way for a lower working class person to create a sense of belonging in a group is there other than pointing out those who don't belong?

Human psychology is truly fascinating.


*
I love how the GOP uses that argument, but thinks people aren't aware of the Southern Strategy that transformed their party after that.


Hee Hee...

I set that little Easter egg out just for you Rusty; I had no doubt that you'd pick it up.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-09-2014, 01:53 PM
Whatever dude...How could a young pre-teen not like a cartoon with so many sexual references?

Penelope Pitstop driving the Compact Pussycat? Nothing better than a compact pussycat
Peter Perfect
Sgt Blast
Dick Dastardly

It's like a porno cast.

You cheeky little bastard, good come back, but you still aren't getting me to believe that you actually liked those cartoons.


I put him up to it.

There is no way a true fan of Fred Flintstone is that clever. Besides, you ruined your own gag by exposing it.

Now, would a hack like Fred Flintstone try to take credit for something not their's?

Absolutely!

Rusty Jones
06-09-2014, 02:04 PM
I think you are on to something here.

Having contempt for those one step below you on the social ladder is a way to validate one's self worth.

You see it everywhere.

For example, in Norfolk, VA... K-5 is elementary, 6-8 is middle school, 9-12 is high school.

I lived in Norfolk from 4 through halfway through 7th grade, when I moved to Delaware.

In my particular school district in Delaware, K-6th was elementary, and 7th & 8th was junior high.

I remember when I was in eighth grade, how most of the people in my classes were worried about being picked on or bullied by upper classmen.

Me? I wasn't worried at all. From the experience I had as a 6th grader in middle school in Norfolk, the only people that even tried to give us grief were the 7th graders. The 8th graders just didn't give a fuck.

When we got to high school, it was the same damned thing. In all the high schools across America, who goes out of their way to give grief to the freshmen? Sophomores. Enjoying that one precious position of simply not being at the bottom. Juniors and seniors simply didn't give a fuck.

Hell, even in the military... how often is it that we someone become some ultra-squared away badass once they make E5, and they're often the loudest about how people in paygrades below them are lazy whiney pieces of shit?


Perhaps, that is also a factor in how racial and ethnic biases form in the first place?

Possibly, but I'd say only to the extent that it's easier for lower class whites to identify with the movers and shakers of the world, simply because they share the same skin color; while comply being distracted from the fact that they're actually in the same boat as all people of their socioeconomic status, regardless of skin color.

In truth, the world's movers and shakers have far less to gain from racism than the people who are many levels below them.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-09-2014, 02:43 PM
Possibly, but I'd say only to the extent that it's easier for lower class whites to identify with the movers and shakers of the world, simply because they share the same skin color; while comply being distracted from the fact that they're actually in the same boat as all people of their socioeconomic status, regardless of skin color.

I'll go along with that premise, but I do think it can manifest itself in things other than skin tone.

Do you want to know what popped into my mind when I read that?

House servants having disdain for field hands in the Antebellum South. Definitely a case of one group thinking they were superior than another while ultimately being in the same class.




In truth, the world's movers and shakers have far less to gain from racism than the people who are many levels below them.

Perhaps, there are always exceptions though, Colonial India is a good example of an exception.

The British Empire benefitted greatly from the rigid social classes in India. Prior to British rule, the classes of untouchables were far less rigid and there was some mobility between classes. Under British rule, those classes became far more rigid, and it became almost impossible for a street sweeper to move to another low rung job like cutting grass.

While not by design, the British benefitted because it made India much easier to control because the numerous social classes at all levels of Indian society were pitted against one another.

I recently read the 1935 novel, Untouchable, by Mulk Raj Anand and studied Colonial India for a literature class. It was absolutely fascinating.

sandsjames
06-09-2014, 02:59 PM
You cheeky little bastard, good come back, but you still aren't getting me to believe that you actually liked those cartoons.





Saturday mornings the must watches were as follows:

Bugs Bunny/Road Runner
The Jetsons
Wacky Races
Dungeons and Dragons

edit: Oh, and Thundercats

During the week when I got home from school it was Scooby Doo, then the Flintstones on TBS.

Rusty Jones
06-09-2014, 03:20 PM
Saturday mornings the must watches were as follows:

Bugs Bunny/Road Runner
The Jetsons
Wacky Races
Dungeons and Dragons

edit: Oh, and Thundercats

During the week when I got home from school it was Scooby Doo, then the Flintstones on TBS.


1984, obviously. In my case, replace The Jetsons and Wacky Races with Kidd Video and Spiderman and His Amazing Friends, and that was MY list!

Absinthe Anecdote
06-09-2014, 03:31 PM
Saturday mornings the must watches were as follows:

Bugs Bunny/Road Runner
The Jetsons
Wacky Races
Dungeons and Dragons

edit: Oh, and Thundercats

During the week when I got home from school it was Scooby Doo, then the Flintstones on TBS.

They weren't still showing after school re-runs of Gilligan's Island during your era?

I think my initial rumblings of sexual attraction developed around Ginger & Mary Ann. I used to dream of Mary Ann feeding me coconut cream pie, while Ginger softly blew kisses into my ear.

Rusty Jones
06-09-2014, 03:38 PM
The only HB cartoon that I remember liking was Super Friends. I had somewhat of a remote interest in Johnny Quest, but if I remember correctly, it was a short lived series with only enough episodes to count on one's fingers and toes.

I also had a remote interest in Scooby Doo, but even at a very young age - like, immediately out of my toddler years - after a few episodes, I always wondered why the Mystery Gang kept putting themselves through the bullshit, when they can simply walk up and rip the mask off whenever they see a monster.

Aside from that... I agree. Buford Files, Captain Caveman, Jabber Jaw, and all those HB cartoons were garbage. However, I could tolerate the Flinstones.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-09-2014, 03:59 PM
The only HB cartoon that I remember liking was Super Friends. I had somewhat of a remote interest in Johnny Quest, but if I remember correctly, it was a short lived series with only enough episodes to count on one's fingers and toes.

I also had a remote interest in Scooby Doo, but even at a very young age - like, immediately out of my toddler years - after a few episodes, I always wondered why the Mystery Gang kept putting themselves through the bullshit, when they can simply walk up and rip the mask off whenever they see a monster.

Aside from that... I agree. Buford Files, Captain Caveman, Jabber Jaw, and all those HB cartoons were garbage. However, I could tolerate the Flinstones.

I might have to concede that the concept of Jonny Quest was cool. The opening sequence was intriguing and the cast of characters were also very interesting.

However, once you got into an episode the story telling quickly became hackneyed and lackluster.

I'm surprised that some movie studio hasn't snapped up the rights for Jonny Quest and turned it into a movie. That concept would also play well if turned into a high end XBOX or PS3 game.

sandsjames
06-09-2014, 04:33 PM
They weren't still showing after school re-runs of Gilligan's Island during your era? Yes, they were...and then I think it was Saved By the Bell.


I think my initial rumblings of sexual attraction developed around Ginger & Mary Ann. I used to dream of Mary Ann feeding me coconut cream pie, while Ginger softly blew kisses into my ear.

I watched some episodes a couple weeks ago. I have a new appreciation of it now that I'm older. Mrs. Howell was hotter than either of the other two.

sandsjames
06-09-2014, 04:35 PM
Oh, and another HB was Richy Rich...liked that one too.

BENDER56
06-09-2014, 06:19 PM
I watched some episodes a couple weeks ago. I have a new appreciation of it now that I'm older. Mrs. Howell was hotter than either of the other two.

Not sure if you're being facetious there, but considering she (Natalie Schafer) was in her mid-60s at the time, she really didn't look too bad. Plus, she had to overcome the dowdy look her character was given.

As for me, I was and remain a Mary Ann guy.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-09-2014, 06:34 PM
Not sure if you're being facetious there, but considering she (Natalie Schafer) was in her mid-60s at the time, she really didn't look too bad. Plus, she had to overcome the dowdy look her character was given.

You can be sure about it. That's just my little buddy taking a well aimed pot shot at my sensibilities.



As for me, I was and remain a Mary Ann guy.

I'll go ahead and call you lazy and lacking ambition.

Why be merely a Mary Ann guy?

I am a Mary Ann & Ginger guy!

Absinthe Anecdote
06-09-2014, 06:54 PM
Oh, and another HB was Richy Rich...liked that one too.

Didn't that entitled little son of a bitch get his start as a newspaper comic strip character?

I shudder to think what our socialist friend Rusty has to say about that elitist prick of the funny page.

You only look up to Richy Rich because you are firmly implanted in the bourgeois section of the funny page with the Family Circus.

Not realizing that you are only a mere panel away from the bottom of the page and the likes of hilly billy trash like Snuffy Smith, Lil' Abner, and those two lousy bottom feeders, Mutt & Jeff.

sandsjames
06-09-2014, 07:32 PM
Didn't that entitled little son of a bitch get his start as a newspaper comic strip character?

I shudder to think what our socialist friend Rusty has to say about that elitist prick of the funny page.

You only look up to Richy Rich because you are firmly implanted in the bourgeois section of the funny page with the Family Circus.

Not realizing that you are only a mere panel away from the bottom of the page and the likes of
hilly billy trash like Snuffy Smith, Lil' Abner, and those two lousy bottom feeders, Mutt & Jeff.

What's a funny page? When are you from?

garhkal
06-09-2014, 07:54 PM
Easier said than done.

For one, I'm 100% against shaming.

Personally i believe if more people got shamed publically when they did wrong, less would re-do it. Like some judges are doing for DUIs and the like.


When I was a child in Connecticut, if I recall correctly, they actually required this of adult males on welfare. That was back in the day, before our current genderless society, where people were fully aware that there were BOTH ups AND downs to being either sex and had no problem with it.

When i lived in the UK, my mother was on the british version of welfare (income support from the local council), but to keep that coming in, she had to prove via receipts, mailings and appointment times/names etc, that she WAS looking for work, to stay on it. That is something we seemed to have gotten away from over here, proof that those on Welfare are trying to get off it.

sandsjames
06-09-2014, 08:01 PM
Personally i believe if more people got shamed publically when they did wrong, less would re-do it. Like some judges are doing for DUIs and the like.



When i lived in the UK, my mother was on the british version of welfare (income support from the local council), but to keep that coming in, she had to prove via receipts, mailings and appointment times/names etc, that she WAS looking for work, to stay on it. That is something we seemed to have gotten away from over here, proof that those on Welfare are trying to get off it.

Yes, but the UK system is also one that will not shut off utilities if you have children under the age of 5...proof of trying to get off assistance or not.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-09-2014, 08:14 PM
What's a funny page? When are you from?

You've never heard the comic section of a newspaper referred to as the funnies, funny papers, or funny page?

I think it might be more of a regional dialect thing than one of a particular era. Although, newspapers themselves are quickly becoming a thing of the past.

I was born in 1965 and I grew up in North Carolina.

BENDER56
06-09-2014, 08:17 PM
You've never heard the comic section of a newspaper referred to as the funnies, funny papers, or funny page?

I think it might be more of a regional dialect thing than one of a particular era. Although, newspapers themselves are quickly becoming a thing of the past.

I was born in 1965 and I grew up in North Carolina.

I was stationed in Goldsboro, NC. As I recall, they referred to the comics section as, "The only part of the newspaper I can read."

BENDER56
06-09-2014, 08:30 PM
You can be sure about it. That's just my little buddy taking a well aimed pot shot at my sensibilities.



I'll go ahead and call you lazy and lacking ambition.

Why be merely a Mary Ann guy?

I am a Mary Ann & Ginger guy!

Guilty as charged on both counts ... and proud of it.

However, the classic question has always been Ginger or Mary Ann. Of course if the "and" option exists then, sure, Mary Ann and Ginger. But why stop there? Throw in Agent 99 and Genie and Laura Petrie and Lois Griffen etc, etc.

sandsjames
06-09-2014, 08:54 PM
You've never heard the comic section of a newspaper referred to as the funnies, funny papers, or funny page?

I think it might be more of a regional dialect thing than one of a particular era. Although, newspapers themselves are quickly becoming a thing of the past.

I was born in 1965 and I grew up in North Carolina.

Dear lord...your sarcasm detector is on the fritz...mainly it was a joke about your age (after I just referred to cartoons I watched in the early 80s).

Absinthe Anecdote
06-09-2014, 09:04 PM
Dear lord...your sarcasm detector is on the fritz...mainly it was a joke about your age (after I just referred to cartoons I watched in the early 80s).

LOL

I thought you wanted to learn a little more about me; I do believe my precious little feelings are hurt.

GeoDude
06-11-2014, 02:42 PM
Personally i believe if more people got shamed publically when they did wrong, less would re-do it. Like some judges are doing for DUIs and the like.

Umm no. Its not okay to put people in stocks in the 21st century. Why are we even seriously discussing this idea?


When i lived in the UK, my mother was on the british version of welfare (income support from the local council), but to keep that coming in, she had to prove via receipts, mailings and appointment times/names etc, that she WAS looking for work, to stay on it. That is something we seemed to have gotten away from over here, proof that those on Welfare are trying to get off it.

That is required here as well. You have so many misconceptions about how the system works, I honestly think you have an axe to grind with people, or certain people, currently drawing welfare. What is it?

Rusty Jones
06-11-2014, 02:52 PM
"If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you."

~Lyndon B. Johnson

Measure Man
06-11-2014, 03:00 PM
"If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you."

~Lyndon B. Johnson

Only a Pawn in Their Game
~ Bob Dylan

A bullet from the back of a bush took Medgar Evers’ blood
A finger fired the trigger to his name
A handle hid out in the dark
A hand set the spark
Two eyes took the aim
Behind a man’s brain
But he can’t be blamed
He’s only a pawn in their game

A South politician preaches to the poor white man
“You got more than the blacks, don’t complain.
You’re better than them, you been born with white skin,” they explain.
And the Negro’s name
Is used it is plain
For the politician’s gain
As he rises to fame
And the poor white remains
On the caboose of the train
But it ain’t him to blame
He’s only a pawn in their game

The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid
And the marshals and cops get the same
But the poor white man’s used in the hands of them all like a tool
He’s taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
’Bout the shape that he’s in
But it ain’t him to blame
He’s only a pawn in their game

From the poverty shacks, he looks from the cracks to the tracks
And the hoofbeats pound in his brain
And he’s taught how to walk in a pack
Shoot in the back
With his fist in a clinch
To hang and to lynch
To hide ’neath the hood
To kill with no pain
Like a dog on a chain
He ain’t got no name
But it ain’t him to blame
He’s only a pawn in their game.

Today, Medgar Evers was buried from the bullet he caught
They lowered him down as a king
But when the shadowy sun sets on the one
That fired the gun
He’ll see by his grave
On the stone that remains
Carved next to his name
His epitaph plain:
Only a pawn in their game

sandsjames
06-11-2014, 03:10 PM
"If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you."

~Lyndon B. Johnson

Ahh, yes, the great LBJ. The quote should have been:

"If I can convince the colored man that I support civil rights then maybe he won't be so pissed off at me when I send more of them to fight and die in a useless war than ever before."

GeoDude
06-11-2014, 03:11 PM
"If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you."

~Lyndon B. Johnson

Quote of the day!


I might have to concede that the concept of Jonny Quest was cool. The opening sequence was intriguing and the cast of characters were also very interesting.

However, once you got into an episode the story telling quickly became hackneyed and lackluster.

I'm surprised that some movie studio hasn't snapped up the rights for Jonny Quest and turned it into a movie. That concept would also play well if turned into a high end XBOX or PS3 game.

Quit being a hater! The plots were alright - and I liked Dr. Zin as a villain. Grade A asshole, but he's not a believer in ideology, he's purely in the bad-guy business for the money.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-11-2014, 03:15 PM
Thank the Whites

- Peter Griffin


Peter: We gave you Eminem

And Justin Bieber too

Even though they dress and try to talk like you

The music of Taylor Swift and clothing from J.Crew

And Jon Heder

Also half of Derek Jeter

Add to that a fleet of soccer moms

Packed into their yoga tights

And for all this awesome neat and wonderful stuff

You know you don't thank the Lord, you thank the whites

Chorus: Thank the whites, thank the whites

You know you don't thank the Lord, you thank the whites

Peter: We gave you "Breaking Bad"

And all the songs by Creed

All the cast of "Friends" and trash like Tara Reid

A virtual world of porn so you can spill your seed

Ray-Ban glasses, leggy blondes with tiny asses

Frisbee sports, and fancy coffee too

Energy efficient lights!

And for all this awesome neat and wonderful stuff

You know you don't thank the Lord, you thank the whites

Peter & Chorus: Thank the whites, thank the whites

You know you don't thank the Lord, you thank the whites!


http://youtu.be/sjDnfLOP8h8

GeoDude
06-11-2014, 03:19 PM
Ahh, yes, the great LBJ. The quote should have been:

"If I can convince the colored man that I support civil rights then maybe he won't be so pissed off at me when I send more of them to fight and die in a useless war than ever before."

It's true. He could have been remembered a great president - and in a sense he is - but Vietnam overshadowed anything else he did.

Johnson started the war, and Nixon perfected the model for foreign wars that is still used today (small volunteer force that can wage war with impunity overseas without any drafts that would upset the sheeple)

Greg
06-11-2014, 04:36 PM
It's true. He could have been remembered a great president - and in a sense he is - but Vietnam overshadowed anything else he did.

Johnson started the war, and Nixon perfected the model for foreign wars that is still used today (small volunteer force that can wage war with impunity overseas without any drafts that would upset the sheeple)
..........

garhkal
06-11-2014, 07:57 PM
Umm no. Its not okay to put people in stocks in the 21st century. Why are we even seriously discussing this idea?


And why is it not acceptable? Are we so engrained into our Politically correct way of life we no longer see shaming someone for doing wrong as allowable?



That is required here as well. You have so many misconceptions about how the system works, I honestly think you have an axe to grind with people, or certain people, currently drawing welfare. What is it?

Is it? I know 3 people i have gamed with over the years at conventions, who were on welfare, and NEVER had to submit any paperwork showing their looking for work. I have heard stories from others that are the same.
Now admittedly it may have been them lying about it, or their welfare office just not bothering to require that, but it does form my POV on it.

Rusty Jones
06-11-2014, 08:07 PM
Public shaming wouldn't work these days anyway. In a world of "be yourself, who cares what other people think; if you don't like it, fuck you; etc" people these days don't really have a sense of shame to begin with.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-11-2014, 09:28 PM
And why is it not acceptable? Are we so engrained into our Politically correct way of life we no longer see shaming someone for doing wrong as allowable?



Is it? I know 3 people i have gamed with over the years at conventions, who were on welfare, and NEVER had to submit any paperwork showing their looking for work. I have heard stories from others that are the same.
Now admittedly it may have been them lying about it, or their welfare office just not bothering to require that, but it does form my POV on it.

What is it about Political Correctness that pisses you off so much?

sandsjames
06-11-2014, 10:04 PM
What is it about Political Correctness that pisses you off so much?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer.

The biggest problem with PC is that it's been created by people not directly involved. It's become popular because people are worried that someone else MAY be offended. Everything is considered abuse, bullying, racism, sexism, ageism, etc. This has led to everyone thinking they are special.

What is has created is a culture of people getting their feelings hurt because they can't deal with the truth. It has created a culture of an overabundance of telling everyone they are great.

You know who the funniest comedians are? Those who make fun of other people. They make fun of all races, all sexes, all sizes, all cultures, etc. People find it funny because on an every day basis it's stuff people aren't allowed to say but everybody is thinking.

PC doesn't protect people. It opens them up to more disappointment when they finally hear the truth.

Measure Man
06-11-2014, 10:32 PM
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer.

The biggest problem with PC is that it's been created by people not directly involved. It's become popular because people are worried that someone else MAY be offended. Everything is considered abuse, bullying, racism, sexism, ageism, etc. This has led to everyone thinking they are special.

I'm a member of "Chief" page...and the term PC or Politically-Correct is thrown around a lot there as the root cause of all the problems of the AF, the US and maybe the world. Everything that happens is "because of PC this and that." Yes, it is pretty much like an electronic VFW, with a bunch of retirees sitting at the bar talking about how bad-ass things were in the brown shoe days...when all Airmen jumped and shouted "Yes, sir" at the slight suggestion of a task by any NCO.

Anyway...so, as with any Chief's Group, the topics of American Indian symbols comes up now and then...and of course, the "offense" to it, by the majority is dismissed as just a bunch of PC bullshit, etc. etc.

Another post came up about some rapper dude wearing a military something...and of course the whole "Stolen Valor" deal went on and on about how this guy didn't deserve to wear that, etc. etc.

One astute observer wrote something...like, "he is honoring us...same way we honor the Indians by wearing their Chief headdresss, etc."

Kind of dawned on me then.... PC bullshit is when someone else takes offense. Trampling on the honor, tradition...or unjustly stereoyping, profiling, caricaturing a group is when WE or someone we love is offended.


What is has created is a culture of people getting their feelings hurt because they can't deal with the truth. It has created a culture of an overabundance of telling everyone they are great.

I do think there is an overabundence of people searching for offensive things.

But, everyone is great at something.


You know who the funniest comedians are? Those who make fun of other people. They make fun of all races, all sexes, all sizes, all cultures, etc. People find it funny because on an every day basis it's stuff people aren't allowed to say but everybody is thinking.

The differences between blacks and whites, women and men, latinos and blacks and whites, etc. schtick is getting old for me...you can almost predict the jokes now, they're not that funny anymore. I mean, I turn on Comedy Central and see a black comedian...you know he's gonna talk most about race. I most prefer the comedians with astute observations a la George Carlin, Steven Wright, Mitch Hedberg...I'll throw Chris Rock in there, although he did a lot of race stuff, it is smarter than the typical "black people ain't gonna stick around for no snake..." Even Jerry Seinfeld type of everyday observation.


PC doesn't protect people. It opens them up to more disappointment when they finally hear the truth.

I guess we'll have to talk specifics...we might have a different definition of PC.

What the Clippers owner said, was not PC...how should a black person feel about it? Offended or happy to hear the truth?

I struggle with that one...PC has become a bit of a cop-out...the villian there is sterling, don't you think? Yeah, maybe he was set up, yeah, he was recorded without his knowledge...but still...those words can't come out of his mouth unless they are in his brain.

Is it "wrong" to have those thoughts? Maybe not...it is definitely Politically Incorrect, but I'm not sure it should be Politically Acceptable either!

The PC wave has definitely made comments/thoughts like his go underground...and maybe that's a problem, I dunno. It's either that or we accept them as an alternative lifestyle..ha! I think that's why also, there is a lot of suspicion that racism takes on subtle innuendo these days...it's not PC to say "the blacks..." so there is a suspicion that this what people mean when they say "the welfare recipients..."

There is suspicion that when people say, "Obama was not born in the US..." that the really mean, "He is not like us...he is black, has a funny name"...yes, that is why some GOP/Cons made a point of saying his middle name Barack HUSSEIN Obama...hoping that his middle name would drive home the point that policies or not, he's not like you...he's funny...and not funny ha-ha. so, while PC is the fad...there probably is more suspicion because everyone knows that there are racists, but they are not as easy to identify anymore.

sandsjames
06-11-2014, 10:47 PM
I'm a member of "Chief" page...and the term PC or Politically-Correct is thrown around a lot there as the root cause of all the problems of the AF, the US and maybe the world. Everything that happens is "because of PC this and that." Yes, it is pretty much like an electronic VFW, with a bunch of retirees sitting at the bar talking about how bad-ass things were in the brown shoe days...when all Airmen jumped and shouted "Yes, sir" at the slight suggestion of a task by any NCO.

Anyway...so, as with any Chief's Group, the topics of American Indian symbols comes up now and then...and of course, the "offense" to it, by the majority is dismissed as just a bunch of PC bullshit, etc. etc.

Another post came up about some rapper dude wearing a military something...and of course the whole "Stolen Valor" deal went on and on about how this guy didn't deserve to wear that, etc. etc.

One astute observer wrote something...like, "he is honoring us...same way we honor the Indians by wearing their Chief headdresss, etc."

Kind of dawned on me then.... PC bullshit is when someone else takes offense. Trampling on the honor, tradition...or unjustly stereoyping, profiling, caricaturing a group is when WE or someone we love is offended.



I do think there is an overabundence of people searching for offensive things.

But, everyone is great at something.



The differences between blacks and whites, women and men, latinos and blacks and whites, etc. schtick is getting old for me...you can almost predict the jokes now, they're not that funny anymore. I mean, I turn on Comedy Central and see a black comedian...you know he's gonna talk most about race. I most prefer the comedians with astute observations a la George Carlin, Steven Wright, Mitch Hedberg...I'll throw Chris Rock in there, although he did a lot of race stuff, it is smarter than the typical "black people ain't gonna stick around for no snake..." Even Jerry Seinfeld type of everyday observation.



I guess we'll have to talk specifics...we might have a different definition of PC.

What the Clippers owner said, was not PC...how should a black person feel about it? Offended or happy to hear the truth?

I struggle with that one...PC has become a bit of a cop-out...the villian there is sterling, don't you think? Yeah, maybe he was set up, yeah, he was recorded without his knowledge...but still...those words can't come out of his mouth unless they are in his brain.

Is it "wrong" to have those thoughts? Maybe not...it is definitely Politically Incorrect, but I'm not sure it should be Politically Acceptable either!

The PC wave has definitely made comments/thoughts like his go underground...and maybe that's a problem, I dunno. It's either that or we accept them as an alternative lifestyle..ha! I think that's why also, there is a lot of suspicion that racism takes on subtle innuendo these days...it's not PC to say "the blacks..." so there is a suspicion that this what people mean when they say "the welfare recipients..."

There is suspicion that when people say, "Obama was not born in the US..." that the really mean, "He is not like us...he is black, has a funny name"...yes, that is why some GOP/Cons made a point of saying his middle name Barack HUSSEIN Obama...hoping that his middle name would drive home the point that policies or not, he's not like you...he's funny...and not funny ha-ha. so, while PC is the fad...there probably is more suspicion because everyone knows that there are racists, but they are not as easy to identify anymore.

The term "PC" relates to politicians trying to make a statement in a way that doesn't offend anyone in order to not lose votes from a certain demographic. This has turned into politicians not being able to create any policies that might actually work because they may not get re-elected. So, in the truest form of the phrase, "PC" has definitely hurt the people. You can't fix things without some people not being happy about it.

The same happens in the military (and I'd guess many businesses/companies). The bosses can't run things in an effective way because they are afraid of what might happen if they say the wrong thing or give the perception of saying something wrong.

I'm not saying we should be able to be rude and vulgar in certain situations, but I do think that we shouldn't be afraid of what we are discussing "just in case" someone might overhear and be offended.

GeoDude
06-12-2014, 06:09 AM
And why is it not acceptable? Are we so engrained into our Politically correct way of life we no longer see shaming someone for doing wrong as allowable?

Or that we no longer engage in disgusting and barbaric behavior? Do you want us to burn people at the stake too?



Is it? I know 3 people i have gamed with over the years at conventions, who were on welfare, and NEVER had to submit any paperwork showing their looking for work. I have heard stories from others that are the same.
Now admittedly it may have been them lying about it, or their welfare office just not bothering to require that, but it does form my POV on it.

Then I suggest you base your point of view on facts, not hearsay. Because everything requires paperwork. As someone who's drawn UI, let me tell you that if you are in any of these systems, the employment office can pull up your full record, including home address, social security number, work history, etc etc. Finding a job was actually less of a headache than continuing to draw UI, which I suppose is the point.

GeoDude
06-12-2014, 06:14 AM
The term "PC" relates to politicians trying to make a statement in a way that doesn't offend anyone in order to not lose votes from a certain demographic. This has turned into politicians not being able to create any policies that might actually work because they may not get re-elected. So, in the truest form of the phrase, "PC" has definitely hurt the people. You can't fix things without some people not being happy about it.

I don't think that's a completely fair way to look at it. Being a bigot can actually be commercially successful. Heck, look at that baker who refused to serve gay people - allegedly his business has actually increased since then, because other people who hate gays have flocked to him. Presumably, a business that discriminated against Jews, Muslims, blacks or whatever could enjoy that success as well, because being "true to your beliefs" can attract like minded people.

Fortunately, that shit is illegal for anyone offering a service or product to the public.


The same happens in the military (and I'd guess many businesses/companies). The bosses can't run things in an effective way because they are afraid of what might happen if they say the wrong thing or give the perception of saying something wrong.

I'm not sure I follow. Most of the shit that has been banned didn't have anything to do with "efficiency", just being a dick. Like for example forcing to new recruits to do humiliating and homoerotic shit (and no moderators, this isn't a "homophobic slur")



I'm not saying we should be able to be rude and vulgar in certain situations, but I do think that we shouldn't be afraid of what we are discussing "just in case" someone might overhear and be offended.

I hear you - and I've been on the wrong end of complaints before - luckily I have always been able to give my side of the story and not get thrown under the bus. There's really no way to establish a completely fair central policy, because in the end it is entirely dependent on unit leadership.

sandsjames
06-12-2014, 10:29 AM
I don't think that's a completely fair way to look at it. Being a bigot can actually be commercially successful. Heck, look at that baker who refused to serve gay people - allegedly his business has actually increased since then, because other people who hate gays have flocked to him. Presumably, a business that discriminated against Jews, Muslims, blacks or whatever could enjoy that success as well, because being "true to your beliefs" can attract like minded people.

Fortunately, that shit is illegal for anyone offering a service or product to the public. I'm not talking about discrimination. I'm talking about things such as telling a girl she looks nice...being concerned about whether or not one uses the word "black" or "African American", paying attention to whether I call the Airmen in my classes "airmen" or "students", wondering if it will be ok to send the new troop in the shop to look for some "striped safety paint" and telling them "not to shake it" because it might be considered hazing, etc.



I'm not sure I follow. Most of the shit that has been banned didn't have anything to do with "efficiency", just being a dick. Like for example forcing to new recruits to do humiliating and homoerotic shit (and no moderators, this isn't a "homophobic slur")Guess it depends on your definition of humiliating. People are much easier humiliated today because they've been told they should be.




I hear you - and I've been on the wrong end of complaints before - luckily I have always been able to give my side of the story and not get thrown under the bus. There's really no way to establish a completely fair central policy, because in the end it is entirely dependent on unit leadership.

We shouldn't have to walk on eggshells.

If I say something that offends someone, they should tell me and I'll stop. However, I've never had that happen, nor have most people I know. We've just been told from others what we can't do or say because it MAY offend someone. And I'm not just talking about within the military...I'm talking about in general.

Why do you think people come to forums such as this and vent? It's not so they can be racist/sexist/etc. It's so they can say what's on their minds without fear of being labeled. That's why there's screen names. That's why there's anonymity. And, for the most part, we do just fine. Is offensive shit said on here? Yes. But I don't think, for the most part, that anyone is offended by it. Some of the stuff may sound stupid and give you an opinion of a guy but it's nothing that we can't deal with. And we all do it. We have all said stuff on here that we'd never say in a public, or even most private, situations. Not because what we're saying is bad or wrong, just that people can't deal with the truth in real life.

Rusty Jones
06-12-2014, 01:31 PM
I used to hate the term "politically correct," as it was once the scapegoat for every single problem in our society. Name a problem in our society - any problem - and someone can attribute it to "politcal correctness."

In recent years, however, "sense of entitlement" has replaced it. I find that "sense of entitlement" is far more versatile because it's not just used as a scapegoat for societal problems, but you can also attribute any and all individual personality flaws to "sense of entitlement."

To get back to "politcal correctness," people use this term with the implication that somehow, people who are offended by something are "weak" or they "can't handle the truth."

And that's the problem... some people think that by being a total dick or offending people, that what they're saying is the truth, solely on that basis.

sandsjames
06-12-2014, 01:39 PM
I used to hate the term "politically correct," as it was once the scapegoat for every single problem in our society. Name a problem in our society - any problem - and someone can attribute it to "politcal correctness."

In recent years, however, "sense of entitlement" has replaced it. I find that "sense of entitlement" is far more versatile because it's not just used as a scapegoat for societal problems, but you can also attribute any and all individual personality flaws to "sense of entitlement."

To get back to "politcal correctness," people use this term with the implication that somehow, people who are offended by something are "weak" or they "can't handle the truth."

And that's the problem... some people think that by being a total dick or offending people, that what they're saying is the truth, solely on that basis.

I'm not talking about being a total dick. I'm talking about having to be careful with what I say in a normal conversation.

Luckily, it's still ok to make fun of the stupidity of dads in every single television commercial. Once that's gone, I don't know what, or who, we'll be able to laugh at.

GeoDude
06-12-2014, 03:16 PM
I'm not talking about being a total dick. I'm talking about having to be careful with what I say in a normal conversation.

Luckily, it's still ok to make fun of the stupidity of dads in every single television commercial. Once that's gone, I don't know what, or who, we'll be able to laugh at.

I think that's actually starting to change - with the female characters getting made fun of just as much as the males - like Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, for example.


I'm not talking about discrimination. I'm talking about things such as telling a girl she looks nice...

Its a matter of whether or not the other person is offended. So if its a girl who is going to take it the wrong way... or even MIGHT take it the wrong way... don't say it. Yeah it sucks but I don't think there's any completely "fair" way the organization can handle it.



being concerned about whether or not one uses the word "black" or "African American",

I have yet to meet anyone who is offended by "black".


paying attention to whether I call the Airmen in my classes "airmen" or "students", wondering if it will be ok to send the new troop in the shop to look for some "striped safety paint" and telling them "not to shake it" because it might be considered hazing, etc.

Guess it depends on your definition of humiliating. People are much easier humiliated today because they've been told they should be.

I would consider being forced to masturbate in front of everyone, or getting anally probed as "humiliating" - but I digress, I might just be too sensitive.






We shouldn't have to walk on eggshells.

If I say something that offends someone, they should tell me and I'll stop. However, I've never had that happen, nor have most people I know. We've just been told from others what we can't do or say because it MAY offend someone. And I'm not just talking about within the military...I'm talking about in general.

Why do you think people come to forums such as this and vent? It's not so they can be racist/sexist/etc. It's so they can say what's on their minds without fear of being labeled. That's why there's screen names. That's why there's anonymity. And, for the most part, we do just fine. Is offensive shit said on here? Yes. But I don't think, for the most part, that anyone is offended by it. Some of the stuff may sound stupid and give you an opinion of a guy but it's nothing that we can't deal with. And we all do it. We have all said stuff on here that we'd never say in a public, or even most private, situations. Not because what we're saying is bad or wrong, just that people can't deal with the truth in real life.

Yes, but things said on the internet have no effect on you. Let's say the majority of your section was non-white, and your section chief was black. He's always saying things like "man, fuck white people!" - then you get an EPR that's less than stellar. Even if his bullets are all fairly written, I bet you couldn't help but think there was some racial bias in it... especially if the other non-whites got a better rating than you.

sandsjames
06-12-2014, 03:23 PM
I think that's actually starting to change - with the female characters getting made fun of just as much as the males - like Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, for example.



Its a matter of whether or not the other person is offended. So if its a girl who is going to take it the wrong way... or even MIGHT take it the wrong way... don't say it. Yeah it sucks but I don't think there's any completely "fair" way the organization can handle it.
Right, but because it might offend someone or have the appearance of offending someone it can't be done at all without a fear of reprecussion.



I have yet to meet anyone who is offended by "black". Ok...




I would consider being forced to masturbate in front of everyone, or getting anally probed as "humiliating" - but I digress, I might just be too sensitive. I would agree, too. As I think the majority of sane people would.

However, there is a difference between humiliation and embarrassment. The word "humiliation" is as overused as the word "amazing". Sending a troop to the dog kennels on base to get some "K9-P" fluid for the generator isn't humiliating. Something that simple is now considered hazing and is not allowed.

GeoDude
06-12-2014, 03:23 PM
I used to hate the term "politically correct," as it was once the scapegoat for every single problem in our society. Name a problem in our society - any problem - and someone can attribute it to "politcal correctness."

In recent years, however, "sense of entitlement" has replaced it. I find that "sense of entitlement" is far more versatile because it's not just used as a scapegoat for societal problems, but you can also attribute any and all individual personality flaws to "sense of entitlement."

To get back to "politcal correctness," people use this term with the implication that somehow, people who are offended by something are "weak" or they "can't handle the truth."

And that's the problem... some people think that by being a total dick or offending people, that what they're saying is the truth, solely on that basis.

I get that a lot with a certain person on this forum. He makes wild generalizations about entire ethnic groups... then when someone calls him out on it he's like "It's just the facts!"

Measure Man
06-12-2014, 03:38 PM
We shouldn't have to walk on eggshells.

If I say something that offends someone, they should tell me and I'll stop. However, I've never had that happen, nor have most people I know. We've just been told from others what we can't do or say because it MAY offend someone. And I'm not just talking about within the military...I'm talking about in general.

Perhaps some truth in that. Also, perhaps part of it is the alleged offending party does not understand the offense and then spouts out hyperbole about it.

For example, I've never met an atheist that was offended by a private greeting of "Merry Christmas"...or a Jew, Muslim, etc. Some atheists, however, do believe in the concept of separation of church and state, very strongly. (even if those exact words are not in the Constitution). So, they may rail against people using thier Govt. Positions and Offices from issuing religious greetings etc. Then the Todd Starneses of the world do not understand the difference so they lament about this War on Christianity and how we are all offended by Christmas, and how saying Happy Holidays is an affront to Christans everywhere, and it's Poltical Correctness gone amok...yada yada yada.

Similarly...cross thread reference...No ONE is going to accuse any supervisor of being homophobic simply for not being able to release Airmen fo the gay pride run....YOU are being politically correct, sir. YOU are the one assuming offense of someone else where there is none.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-12-2014, 03:51 PM
Perhaps some truth in that. Also, perhaps part of it is the alleged offending party does not understand the offense and then spouts out hyperbole about it.

For example, I've never met an atheist that was offended by a private greeting of "Merry Christmas"...or a Jew, Muslim, etc. Some atheists, however, do believe in the concept of separation of church and state, very strongly. (even if those exact words are not in the Constitution). So, they may rail against people using thier Govt. Positions and Offices from issuing religious greetings etc. Then the Todd Starneses of the world do not understand the difference so they lament about this War on Christianity and how we are all offended by Christmas, and how saying Happy Holidays is an affront to Christans everywhere, and it's Poltical Correctness gone amok...yada yada yada.

Similarly...cross thread reference...No ONE is going to accuse any supervisor of being homophobic simply for not being able to release Airmen fo the gay pride run....YOU are being politically correct, sir. YOU are the one assuming offense of someone else where there is none.

I really wish that I could make that text flash.

Read that post very carefully Sandsjames, because that post just blew your weak argument to shreds and the last line puts the tiny pieces in the dust bin.

sandsjames
06-12-2014, 04:14 PM
Perhaps some truth in that. Also, perhaps part of it is the alleged offending party does not understand the offense and then spouts out hyperbole about it.

For example, I've never met an atheist that was offended by a private greeting of "Merry Christmas"...or a Jew, Muslim, etc. Some atheists, however, do believe in the concept of separation of church and state, very strongly. (even if those exact words are not in the Constitution). So, they may rail against people using thier Govt. Positions and Offices from issuing religious greetings etc. Then the Todd Starneses of the world do not understand the difference so they lament about this War on Christianity and how we are all offended by Christmas, and how saying Happy Holidays is an affront to Christans everywhere, and it's Poltical Correctness gone amok...yada yada yada.

Similarly...cross thread reference...No ONE is going to accuse any supervisor of being homophobic simply for not being able to release Airmen fo the gay pride run....YOU are being politically correct, sir. YOU are the one assuming offense of someone else where there is none.

I'm not assuming anything. I've seen apprehension based on fear of reprecussion. No assumption needed.

sandsjames
06-12-2014, 04:15 PM
I really wish that I could make that text flash.

Read that post very carefully Sandsjames, because that post just blew your weak argument to shreds and the last line puts the tiny pieces in the dust bin.

Yep, it sure did. My argument is no longer valid. As a matter of fact, whenever someone says an argument is invalid it definitely is. Especially when that person stating that it's invalid disagreed with the argument in the first place

sandsjames
06-12-2014, 04:17 PM
For example, I've never met an atheist that was offended by a private greeting of "Merry Christmas"...or a Jew, Muslim, etc. Some atheists, however, do believe in the concept of separation of church and state, very strongly. (even if those exact words are not in the Constitution). So, they may rail against people using thier Govt. Positions and Offices from issuing religious greetings etc. Then the Todd Starneses of the world do not understand the difference so they lament about this War on Christianity and how we are all offended by Christmas, and how saying Happy Holidays is an affront to Christans everywhere, and it's Poltical Correctness gone amok...yada yada yada.

I'll agree with those Atheists when it comes to the military. The position should not make any comments, support, or opposition, to anything political or religious.

Stalwart
06-13-2014, 02:24 PM
I used to hate the term "politically correct," as it was once the scapegoat for every single problem in our society. Name a problem in our society - any problem - and someone can attribute it to "politcal correctness."

In recent years, however, "sense of entitlement" has replaced it. I find that "sense of entitlement" is far more versatile because it's not just used as a scapegoat for societal problems, but you can also attribute any and all individual personality flaws to "sense of entitlement."

I see your point but rarely do I hear comments that a "sense of entitlement" is ruining the military vice "political correctness" being the problem.

I will admit that oversensitivity and the desire to not offend anyone has crept up. But don't agree that it is always "politically correct" to do things like have a professional workplace, treat people with dignity and respect etc.

You may be able to talk to a coworker and tell off-color or obscene jokes and use foul language etc. and and he/she not care, but the coworker in the next cubicle or work area who overhears your conversation has a right to not be in an environment like that if they don't want to and let's face it ... we default on the side of not offending people ... we should.

I too often see people that think things like:

1. Repeal DADT = political correctness -- instead of a realization that society and what is generally acceptable has changed; the military is a culture unto itself but is still formed by a cross section of our society. Since when did being homosexual make someone less brave or less qualified to do a job than someone who isn't? The same argument was made about desegregating the military, allowing women to serve or attend the service academies etc.

2. Mandatory annual sexual harassment training = political correctness -- instead of an acknowledgement that many people still have a way to go when it comes to acting professionally in a work environment ... the majority do get it right, but the training is also preventative vice corrective.

3. Female/minority/homosexual promoted instead of me = political correctness -- instead of taking an earnest look at what the promotion criteria was, what they did to meet it and what I did to meet it. Even if I am a superstar was it properly reflected in my evaluations?

As I have said before, as individuals we are all shitty judges of truth when it comes to our own shortcomings and often that results in us looking for something to blame things on when we fall short vice something we did or didn't do to make it happen. It is easier to blame "political correctness" than to acknowledge we may have been wrong, times may have changed or that we are just falling short of the mark.

sandsjames
06-13-2014, 03:51 PM
2. Mandatory annual sexual harassment training = political correctness -- instead of an acknowledgement that many people still have a way to go when it comes to acting professionally in a work environment ... the majority do get it right, but the training is also preventative vice corrective.



Today is our SAPR day. I, as are most, am against sexual assault. If I've had one beer I won't even fondle myself. That is my disclaimer.

The "training", however, is just a way to CYA. Those who aren't going to offend aren't going to offend and those who are aren't going to stop because of the "training".

Ironically, or sadly, or funnily, however you want to view it, it has actually increased the amount of jokes and comments taking place around the shop today than we ever have, with many mocking the obvious points that were made during the "training".

I guess the main thing I can't figure out is why anyone needs training on how not to break the law, no matter what the subject is.

Stalwart
06-14-2014, 07:58 AM
Today is our SAPR day. I, as are most, am against sexual assault. If I've had one beer I won't even fondle myself. That is my disclaimer.

The "training", however, is just a way to CYA. Those who aren't going to offend aren't going to offend and those who are aren't going to stop because of the "training".

I won't disagree that the training can come across like a canned CYA/check in the box event. Creativity, imagination and effort can make it better than it generally is.


I guess the main thing I can't figure out is why anyone needs training on how not to break the law, no matter what the subject is.

I agree with you (especially the part I bolded) it shouldn't be necessary but, as I read a report on the relief of a former Commanding Officer of the Navy's Blue Angels (CAPT = O6), the following tells me that people still don't get what is okay and what is not. And when those people are senior, it filters down the chain of command. For example:

"CAPT McWherter explained that he thought the pornography (in the cockpits of the aircraft) was appropriate because it reflected a special trust shared between the pilot and crew chief."

"The GroupMe conversations contained pornographic pictures, often of male genitalia."

"The GroupMe conversations often contained vulgar, homophobic, and sexually suggestive statements from members of the Blue Angels, both associated with, and independent of, the aforementioned pornographic pictures."

"CAPT McWherter did not make any GroupMe posts that would have served to stop pornographic pictures or sexually-charged conversations from being posted on that venue, nor did he mandate their termination at Ready Room meetings."

"Beginning in 2011, enlisted videographers filming airshows for post-event analysis would frequently scan the crowd and allow the video to linger on beachgoers and other members of the audience, often based on the attractiveness of the person. The practice was not overtly required, but doing so was a passdown item from videographer to videographer."

garhkal
06-15-2014, 04:03 AM
What is it about Political Correctness that pisses you off so much?

Maybe the whole "Don't do anything/say anything that MAY (not has, but May) offend someone" aspect.


I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer.

The biggest problem with PC is that it's been created by people not directly involved. It's become popular because people are worried that someone else MAY be offended. Everything is considered abuse, bullying, racism, sexism, ageism, etc. This has led to everyone thinking they are special.

What is has created is a culture of people getting their feelings hurt because they can't deal with the truth. It has created a culture of an overabundance of telling everyone they are great.

Exactly. When i went through school, if you were failing, the teacher told you so. If you messed up in class, the teacher called you out on it. If you screwed up big time you got punished. Now days, we are so concerned with "not harming their emotional development' we don't call them out, or if we do its not done in front of others so they have that peer pressure on them to shape up'.
Back then if you bommbed a test, you got all sorts of red marks and a big "F" back, now days you can't use red cause it might offend the child.



I guess we'll have to talk specifics...we might have a different definition of PC.

What the Clippers owner said, was not PC...how should a black person feel about it? Offended or happy to hear the truth?

I struggle with that one...PC has become a bit of a cop-out...the villian there is sterling, don't you think? Yeah, maybe he was set up, yeah, he was recorded without his knowledge...but still...those words can't come out of his mouth unless they are in his brain.

Is it "wrong" to have those thoughts? Maybe not...it is definitely Politically Incorrect, but I'm not sure it should be Politically Acceptable either!

And while i agree Mr Sterling was wrong for what he said. One of the 2 main issues i have with that whole debacle is that he said it in PRIVATE to someone he thought was his friend. If you can't even say what's on your mind to your friend, even if someone else may find it offensive, whom can you say it to? Or are you not even supposed to think it? The other was the taping being released. If i am on trial and that tape came out, and can't be used against, me, HOW is it legal for him to receive such a massive punishment (perma ban, massive fine AND being forced to sell what he owns)?


I'm not talking about being a total dick. I'm talking about having to be careful with what I say in a normal conversation.

Luckily, it's still ok to make fun of the stupidity of dads in every single television commercial. Once that's gone, I don't know what, or who, we'll be able to laugh at.

I mentioned that aspect (the commercials) to someone at the Con i am currently attending and she agreed that it is strange how nearly every commercial where its a dad being a parent, they are presented as bumbling or just incompetant. And since she said she knew plenty of mothers who are just as bad as the 'dads' those adverts have, why not show that in those ads. BUT we both agreed they won't do that, just so as to not offend women.



You may be able to talk to a coworker and tell off-color or obscene jokes and use foul language etc. and and he/she not care, but the coworker in the next cubicle or work area who overhears your conversation has a right to not be in an environment like that if they don't want to and let's face it ... we default on the side of not offending people ... we should.

On that aspect, what gets me is when it IS the 'offended one' (nearly always an ethnic minority or female) who is also joining in the joke telling, but as soon as someone (male or white) tells one that they find wrong, gets all 'twisted up' about it.
My mantra on that, is if you are unwilling to take a ribbing, don't give one.



3. Female/minority/homosexual promoted instead of me = political correctness -- instead of taking an earnest look at what the promotion criteria was, what they did to meet it and what I did to meet it. Even if I am a superstar was it properly reflected in my evaluations?

As I have said before, as individuals we are all shitty judges of truth when it comes to our own shortcomings and often that results in us looking for something to blame things on when we fall short vice something we did or didn't do to make it happen. It is easier to blame "political correctness" than to acknowledge we may have been wrong, times may have changed or that we are just falling short of the mark.

As to that aspect. As someone who has sat on several dozen Sailor of the year/quarter boards (or junior sailor boards) and seen 2-3 equally 'qualified' people, but one is either an ethnic minority or a female (or both) get the nod just cause OF that reason, it does grate people the wrong way.