Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-21-2022, 11:24 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2022, 11:28 AM by Eric the Green.)
(06-19-2022, 09:05 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: (06-18-2022, 07:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think "caring about" is a more authentic and alive function than "duty."
They need not be at odds with each other. Regardless of how "passionate" you are though, everyone has to grind through things they don't feel like doing, often for very long stretches. Passion alone isn't something that can sustain you through that, especially not through something like rearing children.
Quote:I would prefer the idea of adhering to principle rather than doing your duty. That which is done out of love, is superior quality to that which is done out of duty. Real life has to spring from within, not imposed from without. That doesn't at all mean that life is only individualistic. I disagree with that approach. Real life is caring, and that includes caring for others. "What do you want" and "Can you act and behave according to virtue" are both worthwhile concerns. Monogamy may work better for the majority of people, if it is available to them. I don't consider that it was available to me, whether rightly or wrongly on my part. But I have heard the research that suggests married people are happier. I disagree that one size fits all, and I support people finding their own way. I agree with "follow your passion," but a passion for truth, virtue and caring is just as passionate as following sensual desires; if not considerably more so. I don't knock those who choose monogamy. I do knock those who knock those who don't, and who seek to impose the morality on others that was imposed on themselves.
If you like the word "principle" better, go for it. Personally, I use them in the following manner
principle: adherence to my values
duty: my responsibility to other people
Both are important concepts, but I feel the need to differentiate, because I know plenty of people who are high on one, but low on the other, and each comes with its own set of consequences.
I think the difference in perspective here is that just because duty involves something I owe other people doesn't mean other people get to define what "duty" is for me. If anything, I have zero desire to follow authority about 90% of the time, and the 10% of the time where I do think it's a good idea, I'm...just not very good at it (though it's probably a good thing most people aren't like me tbh. "too many chiefs, not enough Indians" if you will).
Meanwhile, you can do something you're passionate about that's collectivistic, but if you're mostly running on passion...it's still about you. Passion is often good at getting other people to be receptive to you, but it's not good at being receptive itself. It's also not very useful when you agree to do something and need to hold up your end of the bargain even if you no longer desire to do so after better understanding the implications.
I don't make that distinction. If I have values, that certainly includes a value of considering other peoples' needs as well as my own. Ethics are values. And anyone can feel passionate about that. Or if they don't run on passion, that is just a difference in temperament. Passion itself is receptive too; even the word indicates this. It is a virtue to make it sustainable. It becomes an ongoing part of you. In the alchemical, western-esoteric understanding, active and passive can be blended in the divine spiritual marriage. Thanks for the discussion though; it's relevant.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
The director, producers and executives who created the Netflix movie "Cuties" should be arrested and face criminal charges. We can debate the length of their sentences and how far down the chain of command this punishment should go, but open soft core pornography of 11/12 year old girls? ....no, there is nothing ambiguous about the need to punish that. Under the circumstances, I think a conviction of around 5 years would be reasonable for those not involved in nude pornography or, worse, sexual behavior.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(06-23-2022, 11:51 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: The director, producers and executives who created the Netflix movie "Cuties" should be arrested and face criminal charges. We can debate the length of their sentences and how far down the chain of command this punishment should go, but open soft core pornography of 11/12 year old girls? ....no, there is nothing ambiguous about the need to punish that. Under the circumstances, I think a conviction of around 5 years would be reasonable for those not involved in nude pornography or, worse, sexual behavior.
Like The Donald, these folks seems to know the fine edge that keeps them on the right side of the bars. Though The Donald may have crossed it with 1/6 (still TBD), Hollywood seems to unusually proficient at staying just inside the chaulk lines.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
06-24-2022, 11:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-24-2022, 11:31 PM by Eric the Green.)
Overturning Rowe v Wade has several purposes. Ostensively it is to protect the right to life of the unborn. But if that were all it really was, the proponents would see the moral virtue not only of that, but of protecting the health and the options of women. But they want more than this, which is why they won't compromise. Instead, this decision is mostly impelled by opposition to the sixties revolution, especially in regard to feminism and sexual liberation. The reactionaries whose Republican appointees made this decision want to keep women as they were in the pre-sixties era and even earlier. They want to restore patriarchy, a society of not too long ago when women had no rights. They say rights should be "based on long-standing tradition" and must be "enumerated in the original constitution." That means interpreting the constitution as it was originally designed and written by the people who had rights in 1787: Christian, white, armed, straight, wealthy males only.
It also is part of the trend, even sometimes among feminists, to make people afraid to have sex and end sexual liberation. People must be afraid of sexual relations lest it make the woman pregnant. If she gets pregnant, and does not notice for a while, she may be jailed if she has an abortion, or forced to do it herself at her own risk. Her doctor may go to jail too. She might be jailed even if she travels to a blue state to get the abortion and the care she needs. Republicans in her community may turn her in.
What's more, this decision is only the first step. The reactionaries who hate the sixties also want to make abortion illegal nationally. The apparent permission given by some proponents of this decision for blue or maybe some purple states to allow abortion in their state is a ruse. They say they also want to make it illegal in those states too, and they want a national ban. They also want to ban contraceptives and birth control. The Church favors this as well. They want to outlaw gay marriage again. They want to keep abortion pills out of reach or illegal too. In every way they can they want sex kept in the closet, and walls put up by Christians to keep people atomized and apart and keep society obedient to their Church and to win the culture war against what S&H called The Awakening-- the previous 2nd turning-- and even against earlier 2nd turnings too. They want to keep people working all the time too, and to destroy Nature that reminds us of our connection to real life beyond the walls of our churches and offices, and to protect the wealth and perogatives of the oligarchy that runs them. Keeping people poor with their noses to the grindstone will keep them from having the cool, tolerant, free, open, inquisitive, sexy, creative, loving, awakened society that they fear and are jealous of.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(06-24-2022, 11:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Overturning Rowe v Wade has several purposes. Ostensively it is to protect the right to life of the unborn. But if that were all it really was, the proponents would see the moral virtue not only of that, but of protecting the health and the options of women. But they want more than this, which is why they won't compromise. Instead, this decision is mostly impelled by opposition to the sixties revolution, especially in regard to feminism and sexual liberation. The reactionaries whose Republican appointees made this decision want to keep women as they were in the pre-sixties era and even earlier. They want to restore patriarchy, a society of not too long ago when women had no rights. They say rights should be "based on long-standing tradition" and must be "enumerated in the original constitution." That means interpreting the constitution as it was originally designed and written by the people who had rights in 1787: Christian, white, armed, straight, wealthy males only.
Based (y'all know what that means right? haha)
As for the decision itself, I have a much weaker opinion on this than most might expect. For me, it wasn't about whether or not abortion is acceptable. That is a question for the legislature, not the courts.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the relevant question is one of choosing between the lesser to two evils:
1) overturning previously set precedent
2) upholding a precedent made based on...shaky constitutional grounds.
Regardless of the issue though, you can always count on me to join team hippie basher 
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(06-25-2022, 02:13 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (06-24-2022, 11:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Overturning Rowe v Wade has several purposes. Ostensively it is to protect the right to life of the unborn. But if that were all it really was, the proponents would see the moral virtue not only of that, but of protecting the health and the options of women. But they want more than this, which is why they won't compromise. Instead, this decision is mostly impelled by opposition to the sixties revolution, especially in regard to feminism and sexual liberation. The reactionaries whose Republican appointees made this decision want to keep women as they were in the pre-sixties era and even earlier. They want to restore patriarchy, a society of not too long ago when women had no rights. They say rights should be "based on long-standing tradition" and must be "enumerated in the original constitution." That means interpreting the constitution as it was originally designed and written by the people who had rights in 1787: Christian, white, armed, straight, wealthy males only.
Based (y'all know what that means right? haha)
As for the decision itself, I have a much weaker opinion on this than most might expect. For me, it wasn't about whether or not abortion is acceptable. That is a question for the legislature, not the courts.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the relevant question is one of choosing between the lesser to two evils:
1) overturning previously set precedent
2) upholding a precedent made based on...shaky constitutional grounds.
Regardless of the issue though, you can always count on me to join team hippie basher
And me to join team hippie booster 
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(06-25-2022, 02:13 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (06-24-2022, 11:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Overturning Rowe v Wade has several purposes. Ostensively it is to protect the right to life of the unborn. But if that were all it really was, the proponents would see the moral virtue not only of that, but of protecting the health and the options of women. But they want more than this, which is why they won't compromise. Instead, this decision is mostly impelled by opposition to the sixties revolution, especially in regard to feminism and sexual liberation. The reactionaries whose Republican appointees made this decision want to keep women as they were in the pre-sixties era and even earlier. They want to restore patriarchy, a society of not too long ago when women had no rights. They say rights should be "based on long-standing tradition" and must be "enumerated in the original constitution." That means interpreting the constitution as it was originally designed and written by the people who had rights in 1787: Christian, white, armed, straight, wealthy males only.
Based (y'all know what that means right? haha)
As for the decision itself, I have a much weaker opinion on this than most might expect. For me, it wasn't about whether or not abortion is acceptable. That is a question for the legislature, not the courts.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the relevant question is one of choosing between the lesser to two evils:
1) overturning previously set precedent
2) upholding a precedent made based on...shaky constitutional grounds.
Regardless of the issue though, you can always count on me to join team hippie basher
Legal precedent can lead to changes in human behavior that results from changes in the law. Unless the legal change results in unmitigated horror or that the precedent (Plessy v. Ferguson) sounds good, but contains a crippling oxymoron ("separate but equal" implies gross inequality if unequal offerings for those who make the decisions on behalf of the disadvantaged group experience no unpleasant consequences for the inequality that their decisions impose), then perhaps some legal tweak is due.
For good or ill, people have made their adjustments to the reality of abortion as a medical procedure, usually under extreme conditions. Some of the state laws drafted to allow an abortion ban will cause women to die pointless deaths if certain medically-necessary abortions are not done. The anti-abortion groups call themselves pro-life, but their consequences may be pro-death.
An abortion ban will result in more teenage girls who have been raped (statutory rape is rape) becoming single mothers at age 13 or so. It will also result in single mothers who already have children dying... and their children will be orphans.
If part of an insidious plan to destroy reproductive rights, then contraception may be next. The objective might be a population explosion that results in a copious supply of cheap labor and cannon fodder as well as people to bid up property rents so that most people can be practically destitute despite their toil. Cannon fodder of course will be vital to wars for profit.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
06-30-2022, 10:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2022, 10:03 AM by JasonBlack.)
I am pro-life, but generally I don't talk about it as much because
1) Most of my opinions are centered around practicality. This one is just a lot more gut-level in a way that I can't expect people to care about in a debate. (it really boils down to "is it alive or isn't it?". I come down on the side of "better safe than sorry")
2) I really can see the other side here. I'm not a fan of the "you just want abortion cuz ur a hoe!" type arguments.
What disturbs me the most is the degree to which society has this view of "but there's so many unwanted children".....what the hell? That isn't supposed to be normal. We're supposed to be a society that views children as a blessing, protects children, derives meaning from taking care of children. Both our education system and the broader culture have been completely negligent in teaching people to become parents and to value taking care of children. "Pfft! I don't want kids! I just want to go around fucking random people until I'm 52 and work 60 hours a week even though I hate capitalism, screw family!"
imo, there are three main barometers that show how much actual compassion you have
1) How do you treat your significant other?
2) How do you treat service workers?
3) How do you treat children?
What I see instead is....everyone wants people to take care of them[i] even when they are [i]grown ass adults. No, I'm not necessarily talking about welfare/charity. It's more like this game of "socialism of self-esteem" where people resort to shameless displays of learned helplessness to get pity and validation, while viewing attention given to others as attention taken away from them. Think about it....how is society going to view children when you have such a large % of the population who feels competitive or someone else getting attention? Of course children need more attention than adults. Frankly, this is a variant of cultural covert narcissism I find absolutely disgusting.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
We can all accept that there is no valid pretext for doing an armed robbery. Armed robberies are comparatively rare, but they are one of the most common circumstances in which murder happens. Danger of death to a victim is enough reason to treat any armed robbery as attempted murder, as is reflected in the Michigan penal code, The sentence for armed robbery is the same for attempted murder or second-degree murder" 25 years to life with no possible parole for 25 years, with parole not a certainty after 25 years. Michigan's long, bleak winters alone are good reason to not put one at risk of such a penal term in Michigan.
Abortion is far more complex. Some abortions are medically mandatory even for a woman who truly wants her baby to be born. Some involve an underage child (and sex with a minor is rape!) or some form of rape. I'm guessing that single mothers are particularly vulnerable to acquaintance rapes. A child of a rapist will carry genes of its siring rapist, and those genes are more likely to contribute to sociopathy. I think that we can all wish that Charles Manson, Saddam Hussein, and Ted Bundy, all of whom came into existence under shady circumstances (most likely some sort of rape), had been aborted.
I think that we can all imagine abortions that we consider objectionable -- anything done under economic duress, as abortions necessary to keep some job in a vile sweatshop, let alone being able to survive as a slave laborer in a Nazi "labor" camp instead of being sent to the gas chamber. In such cases abortion is literal murder. Selfish reasons may be discerned in some cases (a chorine must abort the child to not have a break in employment as a danseuse) or because she refuses to "look fat" at the expense of her lucrative career as a model. Through some selfish choice one can debase anything in life, and not only pregnancy. We find that automobiles are essential tools in some armed robberies, which does not result in their being banned.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
07-12-2022, 09:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2022, 09:53 PM by JasonBlack.)
A lot of Democrats and Republicans complain about people working 40 hours a week and still being given food stamps or some other form of social security.
Imo, that's...exactly how the system is supposed to work: aid for people who are willing to work for an honest day's wage and still struggle to make it. Of course, you also have the (physically or mentally) disabled and the elderly, but if a high percentage of people on welfare programs worked 30+ hours a week, that would be a sign of progress, not a bad sign. When we look both at the cost-per-recipient and behavioral incentives encouraged, it's vastly preferable to the alternative of learned helplessness, and high rates of single parent homes, crime and mental illness.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(07-12-2022, 09:48 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: A lot of Democrats and Republicans complain about people working 40 hours a week and still being given food stamps or some other form of social security.
Imo, that's...exactly how the system is supposed to work: aid for people who are willing to work for an honest day's wage and still struggle to make it. Of course, you also have the (physically or mentally) disabled and the elderly, but if a high percentage of people on welfare programs worked 30+ hours a week, that would be a sign of progress, not a bad sign. When we look both at the cost-per-recipient and behavioral incentives encouraged, it's vastly preferable to the alternative of learned helplessness, and high rates of single parent homes, crime and mental illness.
I agree with Nick Hanauer instead. That's not how the system is supposed to work. It's supposed to be for people who don't have jobs. If someone is working, they are entitled to a living wage and a decent middle class life, without the need for government assistance. Making the taxpayers foot the bill for companies that refuse to pay their workers properly is socialism for the rich and the bosses.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(07-13-2022, 01:28 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (07-12-2022, 09:48 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: A lot of Democrats and Republicans complain about people working 40 hours a week and still being given food stamps or some other form of social security.
Imo, that's...exactly how the system is supposed to work: aid for people who are willing to work for an honest day's wage and still struggle to make it. Of course, you also have the (physically or mentally) disabled and the elderly, but if a high percentage of people on welfare programs worked 30+ hours a week, that would be a sign of progress, not a bad sign. When we look both at the cost-per-recipient and behavioral incentives encouraged, it's vastly preferable to the alternative of learned helplessness, and high rates of single parent homes, crime and mental illness.
I agree with Nick Hanauer instead. That's not how the system is supposed to work. It's supposed to be for people who don't have jobs. If someone is working, they are entitled to a living wage and a decent middle class life, without the need for government assistance. Making the taxpayers foot the bill for companies that refuse to pay their workers properly is socialism for the rich and the bosses.
Let me add a MeToo to that. Our system has been so twisted and broken for so long that few are alive to know a better option ... and we're fading fast.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(07-13-2022, 01:28 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree with Nick Hanauer instead. That's not how the system is supposed to work. It's supposed to be for people who don't have jobs. If someone is working, they are entitled to a living wage and a decent middle class life, without the need for government assistance. Making the taxpayers foot the bill for companies that refuse to pay their workers properly is socialism for the rich and the bosses.
If it's supposed to be for people who don't have jobs, unemployment and disability should cover that. Aside from that, able bodied people who refuse to work should not be given anything.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
07-13-2022, 05:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2022, 05:27 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-13-2022, 03:02 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (07-13-2022, 01:28 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree with Nick Hanauer instead. That's not how the system is supposed to work. It's supposed to be for people who don't have jobs. If someone is working, they are entitled to a living wage and a decent middle class life, without the need for government assistance. Making the taxpayers foot the bill for companies that refuse to pay their workers properly is socialism for the rich and the bosses.
If it's supposed to be for people who don't have jobs, unemployment and disability should cover that. Aside from that, able bodied people who refuse to work should not be given anything.
I don't think unemployment insurance is sufficient these days. I suppose I agree with "able bodied people who refuse to work should not be given anything", although that should include able-minded, and welfare to work programs that are not punitive should be available. But what Republicans forget is that recessions and depressions happen (often caused by their policies), and whatever we call government assistance should be available to help people who suffer layoffs because of this. Time limits should not apply. Help should be given to find work, and many times people get fired from jobs, often for the wrong reason, and that should not be a death sentence.
Guaranteed basic income is one proposition, which goes against the doctrine that those who can't find work or who don't work lack character, and says it's because they lack cash. I understand skepticism about this; on the other hand where it has been tried it is workable and gives good results.
This guy advocated this.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
07-13-2022, 10:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2022, 10:55 PM by JasonBlack.)
(07-13-2022, 05:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (07-13-2022, 03:02 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (07-13-2022, 01:28 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree with Nick Hanauer instead. That's not how the system is supposed to work. It's supposed to be for people who don't have jobs. If someone is working, they are entitled to a living wage and a decent middle class life, without the need for government assistance. Making the taxpayers foot the bill for companies that refuse to pay their workers properly is socialism for the rich and the bosses.
If it's supposed to be for people who don't have jobs, unemployment and disability should cover that. Aside from that, able bodied people who refuse to work should not be given anything.
I don't think unemployment insurance is sufficient these days. I suppose I agree with "able bodied people who refuse to work should not be given anything", although that should include able-minded, and welfare to work programs that are not punitive should be available. But what Republicans forget is that recessions and depressions happen (often caused by their policies), and whatever we call government assistance should be available to help people who suffer layoffs because of this. Time limits should not apply. Help should be given to find work, and many times people get fired from jobs, often for the wrong reason, and that should not be a death sentence.
Guaranteed basic income is one proposition, which goes against the doctrine that those who can't find work or who don't work lack character, and says it's because they lack cash. I understand skepticism about this; on the other hand where it has been tried it is workable and gives good results.
This guy advocated this.
I've gone over this a few times, but trying to cast all power as either having or lacking character isn't particularly useful. I am currently poor, and have lived among several subcultures of poor people. The individuals I've seen range from
- disabled people
- rapists
- orphans
- falsely accused who never got their record cleared
- mentally retarded people
- other sex offenders (ranging from as horrific as violently molesting children to as trivial as public urination)
- veterans with PTSD
- violent psychopaths
- single mothers with children from 5 different dads
- mothers who were single because their husband died and left them supporting multiple children
- liberals who work retail
- conservatives who work retail
- farmers
- start up entrepreneurs
....as you can see, you can't lump such a varied collection of people into one set of good/bad values.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(07-13-2022, 10:49 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: I've gone over this a few times, but trying to cast all power as either having or lacking character isn't particularly useful. I am currently poor, and have lived among several subcultures of poor people. The individuals I've seen range from
- disabled people
- rapists
- orphans
- falsely accused who never got their record cleared
- mentally retarded people
- other sex offenders (ranging from as horrific as violently molesting children to as trivial as public urination)
- veterans with PTSD
- violent psychopaths
- single mothers with children from 5 different dads
- mothers who were single because their husband died and left them supporting multiple children
- liberals who work retail
- conservatives who work retail
- farmers
- start up entrepreneurs
....as you can see, you can't lump such a varied collection of people into one set of good/bad values.
Your list is sad and yet incomplete. Failure to flourish has far too many causes, and an inital failure can be so devasting in the long run that, regardless of who or what is at fault, it's career ending. This is the single greatest falacy of the neoliberal 'hard work yields great rewards' argument. It's ceratinly true that it can, given a structure to support the striver or just great luck, but failure is more likely and catastrophic failure more than possible.
Ours is a needlessly cruel system that doesn't even get optimum results. Then again, it does reward the already rewarded and only punishes the 'least of these' -- just as it's designed to do. In short, it's the worst of the GIGO systems acceptable in polite company. The argument for that is always the same: we can't reward bad behavior. If it was only that simple.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(07-14-2022, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote: (07-13-2022, 10:49 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: I've gone over this a few times, but trying to cast all power as either having or lacking character isn't particularly useful. I am currently poor, and have lived among several subcultures of poor people. The individuals I've seen range from
- disabled people
- rapists
- orphans
- falsely accused who never got their record cleared
- mentally retarded people
- other sex offenders (ranging from as horrific as violently molesting children to as trivial as public urination)
- veterans with PTSD
- violent psychopaths
- single mothers with children from 5 different dads
- mothers who were single because their husband died and left them supporting multiple children
- liberals who work retail
- conservatives who work retail
- farmers
- start up entrepreneurs
....as you can see, you can't lump such a varied collection of people into one set of good/bad values.
Your list is sad and yet incomplete. Failure to flourish has far too many causes, and an inital failure can be so devasting in the long run that, regardless of who or what is at fault, it's career ending. This is the single greatest falacy of the neoliberal 'hard work yields great rewards' argument. It's ceratinly true that it can, given a structure to support the striver or just great luck, but failure is more likely and catastrophic failure more than possible.
Ours is a needlessly cruel system that doesn't even get optimum results. Then again, it does reward the already rewarded and only punishes the 'least of these' -- just as it's designed to do. In short, it's the worst of the GIGO systems acceptable in polite company. The argument for that is always the same: we can't reward bad behavior. If it was only that simple.
"Hard work yields rewards" is still fundamentally true. What isn't true is "hard work is enough to get you rich".
Obviously, we have to simplify for the sake of illustration, but let's say you can place people's life circumstances on a scale from -10 to +10, with around zero being the average of American making around $35,000 with kids, some minor health problems and a stressful job. It's not going to get you from a -8 all the way up to +6, but it can usually get you from, say, -7 to -2, +1 to +5, etc. Not everyone in America has the potential to get rich, or even upper middle class, but any country with substantial personal freedom allows you the control to make your life significantly better than where you were at at your worst.
This is what a lot of people miss with capitalism. Just because life isn't 100% fair for everyone (just like it isn't in any other country. you'd have to implement straight up Eugenics to achieve that) doesn't mean you can't take steps to drastically improve your position over the span of years or decades. In fact, it's something we pretty much take for granted that we'll be in a better place in 10 years, 20 years, etc. Most places in the world cannot assume this the way we can.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(07-14-2022, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote: (07-13-2022, 10:49 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: I've gone over this a few times, but trying to cast all power as either having or lacking character isn't particularly useful. I am currently poor, and have lived among several subcultures of poor people. The individuals I've seen range from
- disabled people
- rapists
- orphans
- falsely accused who never got their record cleared
- mentally retarded people
- other sex offenders (ranging from as horrific as violently molesting children to as trivial as public urination)
- veterans with PTSD
- violent psychopaths
- single mothers with children from 5 different dads
- mothers who were single because their husband died and left them supporting multiple children
- liberals who work retail
- conservatives who work retail
- farmers
- start up entrepreneurs
....as you can see, you can't lump such a varied collection of people into one set of good/bad values.
Your list is sad and yet incomplete. Failure to flourish has far too many causes, and an initial failure can be so devastating in the long run that, regardless of who or what is at fault, it's career ending. This is the single greatest fallacy of the neoliberal 'hard work yields great rewards' argument. It's certainly true that it can, given a structure to support the striver or just great luck, but failure is more likely and catastrophic failure more than possible.
Ours is a needlessly cruel system that doesn't even get optimum results. Then again, it does reward the already rewarded and only punishes the 'least of these' -- just as it's designed to do. In short, it's the worst of the GIGO systems acceptable in polite company. The argument for that is always the same: we can't reward bad behavior. If it was only that simple.
Much of the self-indulgence in our society depends upon people being poor despite all their efforts. Retail, food service, and amusements need ultra-cheap labor if they are to be affordable to mass clienteles. We have our pariahs from outright criminals to people disabled by industrial accidents or injuries in military service. OK, it's impossible to make heroes out of overt criminals.
Violent psychopaths are extremely dangerous, and some of them are quite good at hiding what they really are, as was the case with BTK, Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and the Green River Killer. Pedophiles exploit the trust of children only to betray that trust with pain and shame that fits only criminals.
Our economic order seems predicated upon the idea that thousands must suffer on behalf of one plutocrat or executive because such is necessary for prosperity. People doing great harm can pretend that they are benefactors that they exploit. The attitude of the slave-master that he was the best thing to every happen to 'his Negroes' has morphed into a similar rationale for people who exercise great pretentions to charity while acting with economic and administrative sadism.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(07-14-2022, 05:01 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Much of the self-indulgence in our society depends upon people being poor despite all their efforts. Retail, food service, and amusements need ultra-cheap labor if they are to be affordable to mass clienteles. We have our pariahs from outright criminals to people disabled by industrial accidents or injuries in military service. OK, it's impossible to make heroes out of overt criminals.
Violent psychopaths are extremely dangerous, and some of them are quite good at hiding what they really are, as was the case with BTK, Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and the Green River Killer. Pedophiles exploit the trust of children only to betray that trust with pain and shame that fits only criminals.
Our economic order seems predicated upon the idea that thousands must suffer on behalf of one plutocrat or executive because such is necessary for prosperity. People doing great harm can pretend that they are benefactors that they exploit. The attitude of the slave-master that he was the best thing to every happen to 'his Negroes' has morphed into a similar rationale for people who exercise great pretentions to charity while acting with economic and administrative sadism.
I think it's more simple than that: our economic order is predicated on the idea that using money to influence politics is "free speech".
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
|
