Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Breaking teh interwebz - NSA styleFollow

#77 Sep 19 2013 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Why not just admit that you can't refute what I'm saying?

I did refute it. **** was eazy too, yo. That would be the reason I wouldn't admit that I can't.

I'm talking about human nature Smash

Hey, small world, I'm literally a world class expert in that veritas, ************* Can confirm you are incorrect about it. If I ever decide to teach, you can audit Soc 101 for free. It'll be on me. For realz. Gotta give back once in a while.

[sm]Edited, Sep 19th 2013 7:15pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#78 Sep 19 2013 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Seriously? Why not at least make an attempt to understand what I'm saying before attacking me for saying it?


I understand you just fine.

1. You think , given a choice, people would rather not work than work.
2. You think that people are happier with being on some form of welfare than with work.
3. You think that Wal-Mart greeter type jobs are all "starter jobs" apparently unable to understand that in many parts of the country they are the only type jobs.
4. You think that everyone is totally able to become a CEO or professor or engineer etc, when in fact a great part of our society in wholly incapable of ever achieving those positions.
5. You think people working 40 hours a week don't deserve a living (ie. not poverty wage) pay for their work [SEE: #3]

And finally:

6. You think a used Lexus is a "starter car for the poor".


So, there are two options here (vis-à-vis the "attack"):
a. Your weren't born poor (as you claim), or
b. You were, but suffered some horrible brain trauma that made you lose all memory of that past, replacing it with one that just by pure coincidence is a neo-cons' wet dream.

Edited, Sep 19th 2013 6:57pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#79 Sep 19 2013 at 7:22 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
So, there are two options here (vis-à-vis the "attack"):
a. Your weren't born poor (as you claim), or
b. You were, but suffered some horrible brain trauma that made you lose all memory of that past, replacing it with one that just by pure coincidence is a neo-cons' wet dream.


No, don't be silly. You forgot "c. Were born poor, but also into a time in history where you virtually couldn't fail regardless of what you did, so you just assume anyone who fails doesn't try hard enough. I mean you're not going to credit luck for your success, right? It had to be something you did, and by god, if you of all people could do it..."

Obvious, really. Lottery winner saying "poor people should just play the lottery".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#80 Sep 19 2013 at 7:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Seriously? Why not at least make an attempt to understand what I'm saying before attacking me for saying it?


I understand you just fine.

1. You think , given a choice, people would rather not work than work.


If working versus not working results in the same short term outcome, yes. Most people would choose not to work. Are you saying you disagree with this?

Quote:
2. You think that people are happier with being on some form of welfare than with work.


False. I didn't say that, didn't imply that, and don't agree with that. I'm saying that most people, if given a way to receive the same pay without having to work for it, will make that choice. It's not about "happier".

Quote:
3. You think that Wal-Mart greeter type jobs are all "starter jobs" apparently unable to understand that in many parts of the country they are the only type jobs.


I didn't say this.

Quote:
4. You think that everyone is totally able to become a CEO or professor or engineer etc, when in fact a great part of our society in wholly incapable of ever achieving those positions.


I didn't say this.

Quote:
5. You think people working 40 hours a week don't deserve a living (ie. not poverty wage) pay for their work [SEE: #3]


I didn't say this either.

The one thing you got right is the one thing that I don't think anyone can really refute. Can you? What you did after that was make wild associative assumptions about my position based on the assumption that anyone who opposes welfare must hate poor people, so you may as well assume that I hold a bunch of positions aligned with hating poor people. None of which I hold, btw.

Try reading what I'm actually writing without spinning off on assumptive tangents. I'm trying to get people to challenge the assumption that "welfare==good for poor people", but I'm running right into the brick wall of people who believe that so strongly that anyone making the argument that welfare isn't necessarily good for poor people must hate poor people that they can't or wont actually read what I'm writing.

Stop. Take a deep breath. Drop any assumptions you have about whether I like or hate poor people. Then read what I wrote and my reasoning behind it. You'll find that my motivations isn't hatred for poor people, but that I believe there are better ways to help the poor than to give them free money. I don't oppose welfare because I want poor people to suffer, but because I don't think welfare helps them in the long run. I want to have a system that helps poor people not be poor anymore. Welfare doesn't do that. It makes poverty more comfortable for the poor (thus arguably improving their immediate condition), but at the expense of making it harder for them to not be poor anymore.

I value helping people not be poor anymore higher than making their poverty more bearable.


Quote:
6. You think a used Lexus is a "starter car for the poor".


I *really* never said that. I said that a used Lexus is a starter car for high-working to low-middle class. Um... Which it kinda is. It's the car that people who want a "luxury car", but can't afford an actual luxury car buy. Um... But whatever.


Quote:
So, there are two options here (vis-à-vis the "attack"):
a. Your weren't born poor (as you claim), or
b. You were, but suffered some horrible brain trauma that made you lose all memory of that past, replacing it with one that just by pure coincidence is a neo-cons' wet dream.


Or c. I was poor, realized that getting a job was a way to have money and not be poor anymore, and continued doing that until I wasn't poor anymore. And now I look at people who are in the same boat as I was in being told that they can't succeed and that their efforts mean nothing and that the only way they can get by is with government assistance and I try my hardest to convince them otherwise. Because I know that those things aren't true, and if they sit on their butts either unemployed or in a low paying dead end job relying on government assistance to get them by because some rich white guilty liberal told them they aren't capable of doing more, then all they ever will be is poor. And it wont be because they couldn't succeed, but because they allowed someone to convince them not to try.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Sep 19 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
No, don't be silly. You forgot "c. Were born poor, but also into a time in history where you virtually couldn't fail regardless of what you did, so you just assume anyone who fails doesn't try hard enough. I mean you're not going to credit luck for your success, right? It had to be something you did, and by god, if you of all people could do it..."

Obvious, really. Lottery winner saying "poor people should just play the lottery".


You can't really believe that success in life is completely random with the outcome not affected at all by choices made along the way. You're insanely Marxist, but you're not stupid So we're kinda left with the assumption that you want people to not try to succeed. Yet, somehow, I'm the one labeled as hating the poor. Odd...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Sep 19 2013 at 9:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Oh. Missed this:

someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Unless you're arguing that humans normally and intentionally expend more effort doing things than they have to?
Pretty much everything that has to do with attracting a mate and social status. Showing off excess = more fit and such.


Yup. Which proves my point. If attracting a mate and social status are the rewards you seek, you'll expend the effort to obtain them. But if you could get the same mate and same social status without having to expend any additional effort, would you? If supermodels regularly showed up in your room in your parent's basement where you play video games all day and provided for your every sexual need, regardless of how flabby or smelly or lazy you were, would "sex with a supermodel" provide any incentive for you to get off your ***, work out, take a shower, get a good paying job, and hit the club scene?

No. It wouldn't. Similarly, when we provide people with the reward of work without requiring them to work, we have reduced their incentive to work. And we reduce that incentive to the exact degree to which we "help" them in terms of assistance programs. The more someone receives, the larger the gap between what they are actually earning and what they are currently receiving, and thus the larger the "more/better work provides no reward" effect. As I mentioned in an earlier example, if you "help" someone making $10k/year by providing them with sufficient benefits so that he lives at the equivalent of $20k/year, he has to increase his pay by $10k/year before he ever sees a single dollar of reward.

If that gap is small, it can be bridged in a single employment move and thus overcome. But as the gap grows, it's less and less likely that someone can bridge it in a reasonable period of time. If that person is offered a job that could earn him $15k/year, but it'll require him to work more hours and spend time learning new skills, he's far less likely to take that job if welfare will adjust his equivalent earnings to $20k/year either way than if there's no welfare at all. Because in the former case, he gains nothing for that extra effort. But in the latter, he improves his lifestyle by $5k/year, which is significant. The reason this is so harmful is that in many cases, that $5k/year more job will set him on a path to increased job skill and increased pay well beyond what he's earning today. But if he doesn't make that move because he gains nothing right now, he'll never get onto that higher pay track.


What we're basically doing with our welfare system is choosing to provide people with immediate benefits today, but at the cost of a better life in the future. To me, that's a cost that is too high. We should debate the best way to help people in difficult financial situations, not just associate welfare with "good for the poor" and label anyone who opposes welfare as opposing what is "good for the poor". Again, I don't oppose welfare because I want to hurt poor people. I oppose welfare because I disagree with the premise that welfare is the best way to help them. I'm just asking people to challenge that assumption. Set it aside. Reject the emotion laden arguments. And then really look at the issue itself. Ask yourself what really helps people who are poor? I think when you do this, you'll realize that "give them money" isn't a great answer. It's a simple answer, but not a great one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Sep 19 2013 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
You can't really believe that success in life is completely random with the outcome not affected at all by choices made along the way. You're insanely Marxist, but you're not stupid So we're kinda left with the assumption that you want people to not try to succeed.

I'll answer you seriously, who knows why.

Of course I want people to try. I want people to work hard. I'd like it if trying and working hard was rewarded by our society in proportion to the effort put forth. It isn't. I suppose that's arguable, somehow, but not seriously. That doesn't mean I don't think people should try and work hard. Every time I drop Hannah off at soccer practice I tell her to work hard and to listen to the instructors and to have fun. I think that's legitimately a good model for everyone. Work hard, listen, and have fun. Even if the outcome isn't what you want, the process will likely be enjoyable.

There's a tremendous amount of chance involved in life. Far more than most people are willing to admit. We have a small amount of control over our own life outcomes. Success is, obviously, a combination of luck and talent and effort. Take Obama for instance. Talented speaker, by all accounts worked hard at Harvard, but TREMENDOUSLY lucky to be in the right place at the right time to be elected. Are we to take from his success that he worked harder than McCain or Romney? What do they have to learn from his work ethic that they lack? It's the same at virtually any scale.

Despite my teasing of you, you seem a reasonably bright guy. Dropped into most situations at birth you'd probably be ok, but in some you'd be homeless. Me as well. Obama, Warren Buffet, whomever. It takes a great deal of courage to understand that, and a tremendous amount of ramming reason through the emotional idea that "I deserve and worked for everything I have". You didn't. I didn't. No one does. You may have worked hard, but you were also lucky. How can you possibly not see that? If you were born 20 years earlier or 20 years later the job market when you were starting out would have been worse. Starting salary would have been worse. Guess what the best predictor of someone's salary relative to peers is? It's starting salary. Not accomplishment. Not merit within the cohort, just starting salary. Yours was likely grossly inflated relative to what a kid out of school's today would be. How the fuck can you pretend you had something to do with that and maintain a straight face?

The critical piece you're missing is that, as a nation, we are wealthy enough to expand the middle class. Of course there are lazy people who collect government money and don't want to work. There are also people working 3 jobs and not making it day to day. Some of them are smart and talented, but lost the career choice coin flip. Some of them hit a car windshield with their head and lost a part of themselves. Some of them were raped when they were 10 and have trouble with working for any sort of authority figure. Some of them are untalented and not that bright, and unlucky.

This is the part you don't seem to understand. The US isn't close to a meritocracy. It was never meant to be. "Anyone" can't succeed in the US. They have to lucky. If you grew up in Houston you might have worked for Enron and be unemployed still, regardless of how well you did your job. If you grew up in Michigan you might have worked at a manufacturing facility for an industry that doesn't exist in the US anymore. Would either of those be because you didn't work hard enough? Would they be because you had less desire to work? If your mother named you "Raquan" maybe you wouldn't have gotten the job interview. If you were a woman, maybe you wouldn't have been promoted. All of these things happen EVERY DAY. They just haven't happened to you. The world is more than your life.

It's worth financing people who want to just collect a small check and live in "comfortable" poverty if it allows the people who want to work to have a safety net. That works. That increases class mobility. It's known. I'm not going to cite a giant body of research about it. I can, have no fear, but why? You can find the work that's been done on it. Anyone can. If you don't want to bother because the warm glow of your own ignorance is preferable that's really not my problem nor something I can solve. Redistribution of wealth WORKS. It makes more stable societies. It INCREASES productivity. It provides an incentive for poor people to become middle class. All known phenomenon. Social science fucking exists. We don't have to "argue" long settled philosophical differences.

Blacks aren't lazy and violent, people in the US are racists. There are dozens of neurological studies that require no interpretation that demonstrate this. Gay people can and will get married for the same reasons as hetero people, including starting families, and will be about as stable as family units. It's KNOWN. These aren't mysteries that we ponder together, they're resolved issues. Poor people stay poor when they feel hopeless. They become aspirational and take more risks and some of them move to the middle class when they feel more secure. WE KNOW THIS. We make them feel secure by giving them enough money that they don't have to worry about their kids being hungry or living in an alley way. It's not complicated.

We also know people need other groups to feel superior to, and to villanize for problems. WE KNOW IT. People need an "other" to validate their own flawed selves. That group is the problem. They took our jerbs, they are the reasons my son is on drugs, they take all of my money in taxes, they killed Christ, whatever the moment of the day is. You're really going to make yours fucking poor people? Over what? The fear someone will take an extra few grand in taxes from you and give it to someone else? Buddy, I pay your salary in taxes every year. I don't feel the need to demonize poor people. Or very wealthy people for that matter. Demonize people who can't apply logic. That's a worthy "other". One that's not already am incredibly soft target without your fuking self righteous patronizing.

Cut your left arm off, move to Idaho, and start over from scratch with no references and take no public assistance. I mean why not, you're a hard worker, right? You'll be fine.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#84 Sep 19 2013 at 11:28 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji, everything you said you didn't say, you have said, over and over again over the years. See, I read your posts. I would not say that you have said these things if I had not read them over and over and over again.

You are lying, pure and simple.
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Seriously? Why not at least make an attempt to understand what I'm saying before attacking me for saying it?


I understand you just fine.

1. You think , given a choice, people would rather not work than work.
If working versus not working results in the same short term outcome, yes. Most people would choose not to work. Are you saying you disagree with this?
If you limit it to short term? Sure. Some people are lazy ********. But, golly, maybe "short term" isn't the only adjective one could apply, eh?

____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#85 Sep 20 2013 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Unless you're arguing that humans normally and intentionally expend more effort doing things than they have to?
Considering how much effort you go to to argue against facts with hypotheticals, you seem to be a pretty constant reminder of this.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#86 Sep 20 2013 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Oh. Missed this:

someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Unless you're arguing that humans normally and intentionally expend more effort doing things than they have to?
Pretty much everything that has to do with attracting a mate and social status. Showing off excess = more fit and such.


Yup. Which proves my point. If attracting a mate and social status are the rewards you seek, you'll expend the effort to obtain them. But if you could get the same mate and same social status without having to expend any additional effort, would you?
You may still be efficient on a personal level, but it's horribly inefficient overall. If everyone else is getting a 4 year degree you also need to get one if you want a job. Irregardless of the fact that same job you're getting was done just fine 50 years ago by someone who never finished high school.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#87 Sep 23 2013 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I tell future potential officers that once they're done with their contract, their degrees in romantic language history will get them far in McDonalds.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#88 Sep 23 2013 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I tell future potential officers that once they're done with their contract, their degrees in romantic language history will get them far in McDonalds.
They'll be the star of the drive through.
#89 Sep 24 2013 at 12:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Relevant.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#90 Sep 24 2013 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Huh, I've searched for all but two of those anyway.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#91 Sep 25 2013 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Now I'm tempted to send that link over to a government computer.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#92 Sep 25 2013 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Now I'm tempted to send that link over to a government computer.


Put an .exe on a USB with an eagle on it and drop it in the parking lot, 90% chance someone'll run it.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#93 Sep 26 2013 at 3:50 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
As long as it's named FREEDOM.exe
#94 Sep 26 2013 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Operation_Perpetual_Probation.gov.exe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 269 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (269)