What Tea Partiers Really Want

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:15 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
doogly wrote:That's how you get property? You've gotta be shitting me. I could totally do work and make use of the land across the street. They've just got some grass there. I can get some quality vegetables going. It gets to be my property now?

If you keep at it long enough, apparently?

That's fabulous. I am hoping our libertarian comrades feel this is awesome too.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:21 am UTC

On a more serious note, there are some perspectives that try to reconcile this, Georgism comes most immediately to mind. Most proponents of property rights won't begrudge rent being exacted on the possession/use of natural resources, how much value-added labor can/should be taxed is a bit different.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Garm » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:35 am UTC

Dark567 wrote: Investors create valuable companies, which in turn create valuable products for their customers through there employees(which, get this get paid in valuable money).


That's a great plan if it actually happened. Most investors just stick money into different accounts. We've been slashing capital gains taxes for years and all it's really done is put money into rich people's pockets. Which is fine, I guess, but where are all these magical jobs from the mystical companies that they keep creating in this fairy land of yours? The Bush tax cuts resulted in an amazing 1,500,000.00 jobs being created over the course of his 8 years in office. 1,500,000.00. That's one and a half million. That's a lot! Clinton's super high tax rates strangled the economy so it only produced about 2.3x10^7 jobs (or something like that). That's really not that many now, is it. Stop with the trickle down, please. We've been trying it for thirty years now. It doesn't fucking work.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Jahoclave » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:53 am UTC

Garm wrote:
Dark567 wrote: Investors create valuable companies, which in turn create valuable products for their customers through there employees(which, get this get paid in valuable money).


That's a great plan if it actually happened. Most investors just stick money into different accounts. We've been slashing capital gains taxes for years and all it's really done is put money into rich people's pockets. Which is fine, I guess, but where are all these magical jobs from the mystical companies that they keep creating in this fairy land of yours? The Bush tax cuts resulted in an amazing 1,500,000.00 jobs being created over the course of his 8 years in office. 1,500,000.00. That's one and a half million. That's a lot! Clinton's super high tax rates strangled the economy so it only produced about 2.3x10^7 jobs (or something like that). That's really not that many now, is it. Stop with the trickle down, please. We've been trying it for thirty years now. It doesn't fucking work.

Plus, the company didn't create valuable products, the workers of said company produced valuable products. The investor did jack shit except provide a means because the workers did not have the means to start the production of valuable products on their own. Hence, if you want to reward for value produced you can't use capitalism.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Dark567 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:02 am UTC

Garm wrote:
Dark567 wrote: Investors create valuable companies, which in turn create valuable products for their customers through there employees(which, get this get paid in valuable money).


That's a great plan if it actually happened. Most investors just stick money into different accounts. We've been slashing capital gains taxes for years and all it's really done is put money into rich people's pockets. Which is fine, I guess, but where are all these magical jobs from the mystical companies that they keep creating in this fairy land of yours? The Bush tax cuts resulted in an amazing 1,500,000.00 jobs being created over the course of his 8 years in office. 1,500,000.00. That's one and a half million. That's a lot! Clinton's super high tax rates strangled the economy so it only produced about 2.3x10^7 jobs (or something like that). That's really not that many now, is it. Stop with the trickle down, please. We've been trying it for thirty years now. It doesn't fucking work.

Wow. Way to strawman my arguments. I am not arguing for any specific tax policy or anything of the sort. What I am arguing against is the idea that investors create zero value, which is absolutely false. Without investors very few companies would able to be able to provide the jobs or the product they do. Investors have an important job in the process of the economy, they decide which enterprises are worth attempting. Generally if investors select the same enterprises that the general populace finds valuable, they will make money. They can than continue using those same skills on picking out valuable innovations(whether they be technical, organizational, or some other innovation). If the investor is bad at selecting innovation they will lose money and not be able to be an investor anymore.

Plus, the company didn't create valuable products, the workers of said company produced valuable products. The investor did jack shit except provide a means because the workers did not have the means to start the production of valuable products on their own. Hence, if you want to reward for value produced you can't use capitalism.

No, the company itself is an organization that enables the workers to produce valuable products. That organization itself is valuable, because without it the workers by would not be able to create that value. There is value in being able to create value. For that matter, having efficient organizations that better implement their workers, are more valuable than ones that inefficiently implement their workers.

The data also completely contradicts your attack on capitalism. Capitalist and mixed-capitalist economies have created the vast majority of the worlds economic value, it is pretty indisputable.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:08 am UTC

Dark567 wrote:Capitalist and mixed-capitalist economies have created the vast majority of the worlds economic value, it is pretty indisputable.

Capitalists exceed at the thing capitalists care about, measured the way they like? To be honest Dianne, I am surprised.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Steroid » Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:29 pm UTC

Regarding squatters, if I were a bank that foreclosed, given this ruling, I'd start loading them up with mold and contagious diseases rather than let people take them from me. If it really came to it, I'd burn them down.

Regarding the source of property rights: If you can get raw materials without venturing on someone else's property, you can indeed work them and own the end product. But land is property, and most of it is owned. Dougly could grow vegetables in an unowned lot, if such existed, and claim them. Or he can do so on his own land. Or on land that the owner agreed to let him use. He would have essentially harnessed the rain and the sun in convenient carryable form and should be entitled to sole dispensation over what happens to the product.

22/7 wrote:I'm glad I took the time to read through (most of) that. The article touched on something I've noticed more and more the older I get, and Steroid touched on a very specific aspect of it that I hadn't been able to place before. First, the idea of karma being some kind of ruling theory, which is really nice to believe because it means you're in control of your life, and let's face it, lots of people aren't.


Sure they are. Everyone has the choice of what they get up and do in the morning. What you don't have is control of the consequences. Just because good consequences--health, wealth, prosperity, new goods and services--exist doesn't mean that any one person is entitled to them. In fact, each one of us is just like the caveman: we have nothing inherently, we just have the ability to work less to gain more.

It's a really convenient scape goat and aligns nicely with the Christian (as well as many other religions, actually) idea that God does good things for people who are good and bad things to people who are bad. I mean, if that's how things work, then you don't have to have any empathy for anyone at all because their situation is their own fault. So a safety net like welfare or lower taxes for people who make less money wouldn't be fair to everyone else because it's their own fault they're poor.


It's not even a case of "their own fault," it's "not my fault," so why is it my responsibility? I'm not your parent, I'm not your friend. I'm not a Corsican brother. If you starve, I don't feel it. If you get cut, I don't bleed.

Kind of an extension of the karmic rule that Steroid brought up is another common reasoning, that because a system is bound to be gamed by someone, that it shouldn't exist. I see this logic applied to social issues ranging from welfare to abortion to drug use. Because someone might live off of welfare and not work, no one should get welfare. Because someone will use abortions as a way to divorce sex and the "consequences" of sex (i.e., having a baby) or people might have more sex out of wedlock, or whatever, no one should be able to get an abortion. Because someone will abuse drugs, no one should be able to use them. Of course, these arguments are incredibly simplified, as they have to be to make any sense. Anyone who has been on welfare or has known someone who had to go on welfare knows that it's not a life of luxury, but it goes back to the karmic idea. If someone can game the system, then that's not fair to the people who aren't gaming the system, so the system shouldn't exist.


If you want your system to be gamed, go ahead, just include me out. Look, someone could go to a church charity, fake piety, and walk off with help. I don't care, because I don't give to the church. Whatever people want to do with their wealth, including give it away, is fine by me. But people want to give away my wealth, and that's theft.

Jahoclave wrote:
Xeio wrote:
:shock:

What about this one "Dumbass goes in, somebody who thinks Ayn Rand was right comes out"?[/quote]

You know, these aren't reasoned arguments. If my ideas shock you, perhaps you should think about them dispassionately.

So, we're going to ramp up the free markets how exactly? Are we going to force the haves to liquidate their assets to turn them into capital for these potentially profitable robot-run farms that will then eliminate unskilled labor which further deprives those at the bottom of the economic chain from the ability to use their labor to boost themselves up the socio-economic ladder and help their children into such privilege as a college education. Yeah, thought that move through did ya? Here's a hint, the haves benefit the most from the society that all are contributing to. They benefit the most from government protection and from the labor of the rest of society. So, yeah, I'm going to go ahead and state that they owe the most to the running and maintenance of that society. Your problem is that you're assuming everybody benefits the same from the social contract. They don't.


Nope, we're going to take the handcuffs off so that the haves can increase their capital by getting rid of false costs, then open up competition so that when people stop buying from a company it has to close down or curtail instead of getting bailed out, and then the market is going to determine what it wants. And maybe it doesn't want convenience and cheap food. Maybe it wants wood-paneled homes and fancy cars. But wherever there is market viable there will be an opportunity for someone to get rich.

By the way, by your logic, because the white European imperialists enslaved your ancestors and subsequently your being a poor ass smuck because society has discriminated against you and your ancestors thus denying your ability to improve your lot is your own damn fault.


They enslaved your ancestors. They didn't enslave you. In fact, they specifically said you're free. Actually, they said it to your great-great-great grandparents. Why haven't you acted free?

If all you're providing is a brick of ramen and a lean to you're essentially creating exactly what you don't like: a group of people who are always going to depend on welfare for their existence. The minimum keeps moving because the minimum for what it takes to have the opportunity to pull oneself up by their own bootstraps as it were keeps increasing. You didn't need a phone way the hell back in the day because it wasn't required for communications to get employment. Now it is is. Increasingly the ability to have basic computer skills is a requirement and thus in order to gain employ you're going to have to acquire those.

You don't need those to work manual labor. You do that 16/7 till you can afford a phone. Look, there's no such thing as too poor to work more than you spend. But you have to be willing to do it, which means you have to want to improve your lot.

Congratulations on advocating genocide. I appreciate your sentiment, but when you're advocating childish logic--i.e. the self-oriented selfish logic you're advocating--people aren't going to take you all that seriously. Your analogy is pretty much shit considering its historical inaccuracy anyways. It's not like the Arab world happened to have protected the knowledge which was then rediscovered as a wealthy urban class that depended on trade and skills closer resembling an educated populace emerged and as a feudal system dependent on largely uneducated and unskilled labor mixed with consistent destructive violence waned or anything like that. The weak dying off had nothing to do with the stronger surviving, but rather the emergence of a new economic system.


I'm not advocating genocide, I'm predicting it. Oh, the second Dark Age won't be as bad, for the reason you say, but suppose that something killed 50% of the worlds population. No more labor force, no more markets. . . wouldn't there be a real serious economic and political collapse?

As for redistribution of wealth by the state, I'm sorry, but when the wealthy stop benefiting disproportionately by state protection I might give a shit about your poorly constructed argument.


Oh, I'm just as much against corporate welfare as I am against welfare welfare. No, I don't think that rich people should get farm subsidies. Junk them all, I say. I just don't see a difference, macroeconomically speaking, between money to be spent on the frivolities of the rich, and money to be spent on the survival of the poor.

Seriously, can you not get it through your head that there are reasons that the poor are poor and it's not because they deserve it, but rather that they and their ancestry have been systematically discriminated against? You keep bringing up example after example of exactly that and it goes right over your head. Cognitive dissonance, you can has.

Many people's ancestry has been discriminated against, including mine (They just loved Sicilians right off the boat, right?). Some are poor and some have advanced. Same stimulus, different response. No causation, QED.

The private market fails major ass to do education. Want to guess when the majority of the population started to be educated and all those wonderful things requiring science and such started to really take off? I'll give you a hint, roughly the same time that government funded public education really took hold.


And that was the same time that the statist government started to come into play. Oh joy.

There's a reason you get so much hostility: your arguments are poor, your research is spotty, and on top of that you're pretty much calling for a genocide of most of the population of the planet. See why people might think you're a bit of an ass?


No! You have a first-principle premise of "Anything that calls for genocide against most of the population of the planet is wrong." I'm not that biased. My first-principle is "Anything that is unjust ought to be correct to be just," and if people's whole lives are unjust, then why should they continue?

Malice wrote:I think you are confused. "You're straight, so you're a bigot" is not something people say. The behavior you began by discussing is when somebody comes up to you and says, "You're being a bigot, so fuck off, asshole." You were equating bigotry against gays with bigotry against bigots, not bigotry against straights. I'm not going to suggest that bigotry against straights doesn't exist, because everything exists somewhere, and there are a probably a few hardcore gay joints where people might jeer at you and call you a breeder if you wandered in like a lost little lamb looking for hot lesbian chicks. But the problem of bigotry against straights is so minor as to be completely beside the point. It's not systemic, it's not enforced by the law, and by and large it is not socially enforced either.


No, you're missing the point. Let's replace, "You're straight, so you're a bigot," with "All tea partiers are racists and homophobes." and re-submit. Yes, I know, voluntary group. It's still bigotry in that it hurts and offends. I shouldn't have to leave a group I voluntarily join in order to be Basically Decent.

Steroid wrote:It's not the only way to run a workplace. In fact, they tried it your way for a very long time. The result was diners where black people couldn't sit and eat lunch. Conclusion? Government mandates.

Right, busybodies destroying property rights. That's a BAD thing, okay? Look, let me try to take this down as far as I can philosophically:

-Property rights ought to be absolute.
-Because if they are, then real-world events are entirely under the control of one human being.
-And one human being is the only thing in the universe that doesn't follow strict laws but has free will.
-And that free will ought to be unsullied by the crushing forces of those strict laws.
-Because metaphysically, concepts like free will have existence equal to (though not in the same way as) matter and energy.
-And by denying them politically, we act in counter to metaphysical reality.
-Which is factually and logically wrong.

Steroid wrote:
Yeah, it really sucks that businesses must make a token effort to inform interviewees and employees of their rights. Quit whining.


Yeah, it really sucks that gays can't get a job. Quit whining.

Hear how that sounds? Because if you're saying they're not the same thing, then you're saying you're better than me. And you are not better than me.


I've bolded the actual part that makes it "not the same thing". He's not saying he's better than you. He's saying not being able to get a job and put food on the table for your family is not equivalent to having to put up some posters in your place of business.[/quote]

Well, this has gone on too long and I think we're at loggerheads. So since this thread is called What Tea Partiers Really Want, I'll say that this Tea Partier really Wants recognition that, again, speaking economically, the first penny that earns the bread you need to survive is no different from the billionth dollar that buys you a yacht. I believe that and advocate politics in its light. And I think this disagreement is at the root of the rest of the points here: a black man's job versus another man's property, racism not mattering for the poor but mattering for the rich, current starvation versus future progress, etc.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:58 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Regarding squatters, if I were a bank that foreclosed, given this ruling, I'd start loading them up with mold and contagious diseases rather than let people take them from me. If it really came to it, I'd burn them down.

Regarding the source of property rights: If you can get raw materials without venturing on someone else's property, you can indeed work them and own the end product. But land is property, and most of it is owned. Dougly could grow vegetables in an unowned lot, if such existed, and claim them. Or he can do so on his own land. Or on land that the owner agreed to let him use. He would have essentially harnessed the rain and the sun in convenient carryable form and should be entitled to sole dispensation over what happens to the product.

So if property rights are the one true sacred and holy right of man, and having the original usage of otherwise unclaimed raw materials is the way to establish a legitimate claim on the land, you are certainly in favor of returning all American land to its native peoples, right?

Also bro, it's not that people are saying 'all tea partiers are racist homophobes and you automatically must be one.' More like, 'every tea partier that has communicated their opinions where i could read or hear them has proven to be a racist homophobe, and you're no exception.' Cause seriously, read over your shit. It's pretty flagrantly bigoted.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby netcrusher88 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:09 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:They enslaved your ancestors. They didn't enslave you. In fact, they specifically said you're free. Actually, they said it to your great-great-great grandparents. Why haven't you acted free?

Food for thought. I cannot cite this as it is a fictional construction, but look hard enough and I guarantee you could pick example after example.

Small town Georgia/Alabama/Louisiana/whatever, 1960. The Civil Rights Act won't come for 4 years, and the entire South is basically American Apartheid. Anyway. The class division and racial division are indistinguishable. 90% of the wealth - thus buying power, economic power, that sort of thing - is held by white people. All the nice shops in town, all the restaurants, even transit either excludes black people or relegates them to a back corner of the room. They certainly don't hire any.

There are black-owned businesses, but the affluent white people don't go there. If they're lucky, the white majority leaves them be - if not, they get firebombed. Or the owners get lynched, particularly if they're persistent and keep trying to succeed. And if they are left alone? They'll never see real success - their only clientèle will be other black people poorer than they, with whatever meager wage someone saw fit to pay them - or more likely whatever meager wage another black business owner was able to pay them. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that they'll have trouble getting supplies - if the invariably white-owned suppliers deign to sell to them they'll do it at an exorbitant price.

Well then, you say, why don't they farm? Alright, let's say they rent a parcel of land to farm on. At a similarly exorbitant price, likely, and you can bet with the restriction that the landlord gets any and all product at a (painfully low) fixed price. If it's even economically viable to farm then, the prices will be controlled so they'll never be able to save enough to do anything else. And if you think I'm making this up, this is how many areas of the South existed for decades after the end of slavery - it was really no different, just a bit of money changing hands instead of wounds and whip strikes. Hell, it's how much of industry existed pre-unions.

Or maybe a few lucky people find a parcel of land they can purchase. Maybe they even managed to get it at a fair market price, though that's unlikely if they purchased from a white landowner. Odds are they got it because the owner didn't want it - maybe the soil doesn't take well to the local choice of crops. Maybe a few have some land that's been handed down through a few generations. It started out the same - an unfarmable parcel of land an affluent landowner didn't want anymore - but over decades of crops conditioning the soil and picking rocks out of sand and clay, it's a nice fertile bit of land.

So they own their crop. But they're not getting any white money for it. Even if they try to undercut white landowners - who are much more likely to be able to absorb a season of two of such a cut to chase them out instead - the white-dominated market will select for white growers and suppliers.

You, I take it, are okay with this situation.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Steroid » Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:11 pm UTC

doogly wrote:So if property rights are the one true sacred and holy right of man, and having the original usage of otherwise unclaimed raw materials is the way to establish a legitimate claim on the land, you are certainly in favor of returning all American land to its native peoples, right?

Well, not Manhattan, we bought that. But sure. And then they can give back everything they derived from European settlers, like, you know, the wheel.

Also bro, it's not that people are saying 'all tea partiers are racist homophobes and you automatically must be one.' More like, 'every tea partier that has communicated their opinions where i could read or hear them has proven to be a racist homophobe, and you're no exception.' Cause seriously, read over your shit. It's pretty flagrantly bigoted.

Once again, speaking against the interest of a party is not bigotry against that party. I don't think that black people should be able to enslave white people; does that make me racist?

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby netcrusher88 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:16 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:they can give back everything they derived from European settlers, like, you know, the wheel.

You're reminding me of this character from Red Dead Redemption. You know, turn of the century anthropologist. Absolutely fascinated with how the savages were able to speak English, or something. Absolutely convinced they couldn't be civilized.

Also, I'm quite sure that given the option the Americans of the 17-18th century would have happily never encountered smallpox in exchange for not being tricked out of massive swaths of land.

Have you ever read Brave New World?
I don't think that black people should be able to enslave white people; does that make me racist?

This is what we call a straw man.
Last edited by netcrusher88 on Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:16 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:I don't think that black people should be able to enslave white people; does that make me racist?

Nope, that is not sufficient. It's a good thing you've said other things though.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Belial » Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:20 pm UTC

doogly wrote:It's a good thing you've said other things though.


Are you sure?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Zamfir » Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:35 pm UTC

Steroid, I appreciate your efforts to reply to us, especially given that most of us (including me) are clearly not going to be very receptive to your view point.

So, purely as an exchange in views, can I ask you to clarify some parts of your previous post?

In particular, at some points you state that you don't think you have any responsibility for the well being of other people, for example
Steroid wrote:It's not even a case of "their own fault," it's "not my fault," so why is it my responsibility? I'm not your parent, I'm not your friend. I'm not a Corsican brother. If you starve, I don't feel it. If you get cut, I don't bleed.
or
No! You have a first-principle premise of "Anything that calls for genocide against most of the population of the planet is wrong." I'm not that biased.
and similar sentiments, like the drowning bit, in earlier posts.

What I don't get is, why do you expect us to care about your taxes in return? Instead of thinking: he's born in a country where they tax people to pay for stuff he doesn't like. Sucks for him, he can move to Somalia if he doesn't want to pay taxes. What gives your demands for lower taxes a moral weight that you claim is absent from so many other situations?

You put in some points that are presumably related to that:
Look, let me try to take this down as far as I can philosophically:

-Property rights ought to be absolute.
-Because if they are, then real-world events are entirely under the control of one human being.
-And one human being is the only thing in the universe that doesn't follow strict laws but has free will.
-And that free will ought to be unsullied by the crushing forces of those strict laws.
-Because metaphysically, concepts like free will have existence equal to (though not in the same way as) matter and energy.
-And by denying them politically, we act in counter to metaphysical reality.
-Which is factually and logically wrong.

But I don't really understand the entire chain of reasoning. What does it mean that "then, real-world events are under the control of one human being"? There seem to be lots of events in the real world that are not under the control of one person, or of any person at all. Market prices for example are not under the control of one human being, no matter how property rights are organized. Even stronger, earthquakes are not under the control of anyone at all. So I don't get what you are trying to say there.

The later points seem to suggest that we can influence how much free will there is, metaphysically? If understand it right, you imply that legal laws and taxes reduce free will in some way? Then how are you going to make a difference between laws you support, like property rights, and laws you do not support?

I can see how your argument could be used to claim that there should be no laws, and that we should be able to do whatever we want and can get away with. But how can you square that with enforced property rights?


EDIT:
Steroid wrote:Well, not Manhattan, we bought that. But sure. And then they can give back everything they derived from European settlers, like, you know, the wheel.

You're claiming that Europeans have a property right on the concept of the wheel? Is that something we share, or do you mean there is some particular person who should be the legal owner of the concept, except we forgot through time who it is?
Last edited by Zamfir on Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jplus
Posts: 1721
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Jplus » Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:10 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
Julian wrote:
Steroid wrote:The word church, in lowercase, can refer to any building of religious worship. It can refer to a synagogue, mosque, temple, etc. And I'm the one who's Christian-normative? Well, perhaps I am. But it's a function of the golden rule: they have the gold; they make the rules. Heterosexual Christians have done a lot for mankind. Historical fact, can't just ignore it.

For this one, allow me to puke for a moment.

What's emetic about that? And again, suppose I had that reaction during Women's History Month? This double standard that can't stand anything in favor of a (heterosexual, white, Christian, male, conservative) is the oikophobia I'm talking about.

It's emetic because of smugness and short-sightedness. For one, I don't share your impression that Christians have done a lot for mankind, and what they have done is probably more bad than good. Secondly, what other Christians in the past have done doesn't tell anything about you. Even if other Christians in the past turned out to have done mostly very good things, it wouldn't tell anything about you and it certainly would still be very dickish to be smug about being a Christian. Finally, you seem to believe that those Christians that did a lot for mankind were almost exclusively heterosexuals, while in reality about 10 percent of them was probably gay.

Also this doesn't have anything to do with oikophobia. I don't feel related to you at all. No person should talk about a group of individuals, be it their own or not, minority or not, in the way you exhibited here, lest they want me to puke.

I agree to everything I read of what Zamfir said in this thread (and that rhymes), by the way, including the first line of his previous post.
"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache coherence, naming things, and off-by-one errors." (Phil Karlton and Leon Bambrick)

coding and xkcd combined

(Julian/Julian's)

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Jahoclave » Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:06 pm UTC

doogly wrote:
Dark567 wrote:Capitalist and mixed-capitalist economies have created the vast majority of the worlds economic value, it is pretty indisputable.

Capitalists exceed at the thing capitalists care about, measured the way they like? To be honest Dianne, I am surprised.

On top of that, that still doesn't change the fact that the investors didn't create that value. The investor still did nothing to produce value. A company is not a value producer, the workers of the company are. Even then, if we are going to reward organizing means of production then the investors are still out because it was upper management that did that, not them.

And I would say it's quite disputable based on the fact that Capitalism is the only economic system to have the benefit of massive scientific advances and the only system that existed in the context of a largely non-agrarian society.

Then again, by your logic Capitalism also created the most disparate living conditions and unhealthy societies en mass. It's done the most environmental damage. Etc... I mean, sure, Capitalism created a lot of value through insanely exploitative tactics.

Well, not Manhattan, we bought that. But sure. And then they can give back everything they derived from European settlers, like, you know, the wheel.

Okay, well you Romans can fuck right off and give back everything you stole from stone age groups by conquest. Oh, and I do believe you need to stop using Arabic letters and the concept of zero. Oh, and you better stop being Christian, that wasn't your creation either. Oh, give back gunpowder to Asia. No tea either. Or coffee.

You know, when you really sit down and think about major discoveries in the world, a surprisingly large amount of them weren't made by Europeans or required the apply of non-European technology.

It's a good thing I'm not a genocidal racist so that I don't have to drink this tea in the knowledge that non-Europeans contributed far more to its existence than my preferred people.


For one, I don't share your impression that Christians have done a lot for mankind, and what they have done is probably more bad than good.
There's also the issue of did they do it in the name of Christianity, or were they doing it because they wanted to do so and just happened to be Christian. I mean, sure, the middle-ages Christianity enabled scientific progress in Europe, mainly because they had the only literate class of people with time on their hands to do so. The Arab world was busy kicking their ass at discover during the time period though. Without Islam you can kiss math advancements in the butt.
Last edited by Jahoclave on Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Garm » Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:12 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Look, let me try to take this down as far as I can philosophically:

-Property rights ought to be absolute.
-Because if they are, then real-world events are entirely under the control of one human being.
-And one human being is the only thing in the universe that doesn't follow strict laws but has free will.
-And that free will ought to be unsullied by the crushing forces of those strict laws.
-Because metaphysically, concepts like free will have existence equal to (though not in the same way as) matter and energy.
-And by denying them politically, we act in counter to metaphysical reality.
-Which is factually and logically wrong.

But I don't really understand the entire chain of reasoning. What does it mean that "then, real-world events are under the control of one human being"? There seem to be lots of events in the real world that are not under the control of one person, or of any person at all. Market prices for example are not under the control of one human being, no matter how property rights are organized. Even stronger, earthquakes are not under the control of anyone at all. So I don't get what you are trying to say there.


To me, this looks like an appeal to Objectivism. Each person is an individual, in control of their personal property, and fully in control of themselves and their mental facilities. Unfortunately, not everyone (read no one) is a rational actor either in the absolute sense required by Rand or the loose sense used by the rest of humanity.

Dark567 wrote:Wow. Way to strawman my arguments. I am not arguing for any specific tax policy or anything of the sort. What I am arguing against is the idea that investors create zero value, which is absolutely false. Without investors very few companies would able to be able to provide the jobs or the product they do. Investors have an important job in the process of the economy, they decide which enterprises are worth attempting. Generally if investors select the same enterprises that the general populace finds valuable, they will make money. They can than continue using those same skills on picking out valuable innovations(whether they be technical, organizational, or some other innovation). If the investor is bad at selecting innovation they will lose money and not be able to be an investor anymore.


I guess investors kind of can create value? I guess? I mean, I see your point and saw it when you first made it. Speaking merely from opinion, it seems that overwhelmingly, the bulk of investment has moved away from the real economy and into financial services (the financial services sector has become some insanely large portion of our economy since the bullshit pulled by Graham during the lameduck session of Clinton's last year in office. Just to pull a number completely out of my butt, I think I remember hearing that it was around or over 40% of our economy. I don't particularly feel like doing the research right now). This whole idea of innovation winning over the hearts and minds of the market place is very idealistic but tends not to pan out. What seems to happen, more often than not, is that someone comes up with some great product, a giant company copies it and then there's a lawsuit. That lawsuit either gets settled out of court; the innovator gives up, a broken husk of a man, buried under legal bills; or it gets settled out of court for some millions of dollars that the company will recoup in a matter of months (if not weeks or days). The investors invest more money in the giant company and no jobs are created.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Dark567 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:15 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:On top of that, that still doesn't change the fact that the investors didn't create that value. The investor still did nothing to produce value. A company is not a value producer, the workers of the company are. Even then, if we are going to reward organizing means of production then the investors are still out because it was upper management that did that, not them.
The investor did nothing? They provided the machinery, the wages, the offices, the computers, decided who was going be the upper management etc. Those decisions all require work, and all have large impact on the value the company produces, and the value of the company.

Jahoclave wrote:And I would say it's quite disputable based on the fact that Capitalism is the only economic system to have the benefit of massive scientific advances and the only system that existed in the context of a largely non-agrarian society.
These aren't coincidences.

Jahoclave wrote:Then again, by your logic Capitalism also created the most disparate living conditions
Yes, because capitalism allows both largerlarge amounts of both rich and poor to exist. Guess what? Before there was capitalism, there was largely only one.*

*Hint: it wasn't rich.

EDIT: Replaced larger with large, which actually makes sense, unlike the previous wording.
Last edited by Dark567 on Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

quantumcat42
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:06 pm UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby quantumcat42 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:26 pm UTC

I'm curious -- question for those of who who believe Steroid has shown himself to be racist (genocidal or otherwise). Could you quote specifically what he said that was racist? I've seen him say plenty that wasn't Basically Decent, plenty that wasn't sympathetic, and a number of things that have flown in the face of the basic assumptions held by most involved in this thread (myself included)... but off the top of my head, I can't think of anything actually racist:
Merriam-Webster wrote:1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Zamfir » Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:45 pm UTC

The investor did nothing? They provided the machinery, the wages, the offices, the computers, decided who was going be the upper management etc. Those decisions all require work, and all have large impact on the value the company produces, and the value of the company.

Most of those are not done by 'investors', investors just pay for them.

Anyway, in this kind of discussions it makes sense to separate investing into separate parts, call them saving and managing. Saving is just the 'action' of not consuming as much as you can and offering the rest up for investment. The other part is where that money is actually allocated to a particular activity, and associated tasks like monitoring (for example by appointing board members). Most people do only the first, with a tiny bit of the second by choosing a particular mutual fund or so. The second is mostly done by professionals who are not choosing or monitoring their own investments.

Some people really do both, and spend their time mostly managing their own investments. But those are not necessarily typical for how capitalism works. They are more like owners of small businesses who are also their own main employee.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:44 pm UTC

doogly wrote:
Dark567 wrote:Capitalist and mixed-capitalist economies have created the vast majority of the worlds economic value, it is pretty indisputable.

Capitalists exceed at the thing capitalists care about, measured the way they like? To be honest Dianne, I am surprised.

How many societies haven't tried to create economic value in the past century? About two come to mind that arguably didn't; the tally of non-capitalistic/mixed economy countries that tried and failed is much, much greater.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Dark567 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:51 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:How many societies haven't tried to create economic value in the past century? About two come to mind that arguably didn't; the tally of non-capitalistic/mixed economy countries that tried and failed is much, much greater.

Out of curiosity, what are the two?
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Zamfir » Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:04 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Bubbles McCoy wrote:How many societies haven't tried to create economic value in the past century? About two come to mind that arguably didn't; the tally of non-capitalistic/mixed economy countries that tried and failed is much, much greater.

Out of curiosity, what are the two?

I guess the Khmer Rouge is one example of a movement that controlled a country and purposely tried to undo material progress. We could say that technically they failed at their aims. Outside of those there might be some movements like theocracies that really put a neutral value on material progress. The Vatican is probably honestly not interested in increasing the material well-being of its citizens, but it hardly counts as a society or country. Countries like Iran definitely see economic value as positive goal, if not the only one. Bhutan claimed to maximize "happiness" for a while, but that was more PR to hide the failure of economic progress than a serious goal.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:08 pm UTC

I don't think Tibet was for the first half of the century, and Bhutan in the present day at least claims to not be preoccupied by it. I suppose India for a time didn't, but didn't really find it all that conductive to human development all said and done. Come to think of it, it might make more sense to refine the search to the past half-century, Tibet belongs more to a set of bygone medieval societies that didn't actively pursue economic development more out of a lack of understanding of the concept rather than an active rejection of the concept.

Edit @ Zamfir - I never interpreted Bhutan quite so cynically. They do have an okay economy all things considered, and a rather high happiness rating considering that they aren't quite a developed country.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby netcrusher88 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:26 pm UTC

quantumcat42 wrote:I'm curious -- question for those of who who believe Steroid has shown himself to be racist (genocidal or otherwise). Could you quote specifically what he said that was racist? I've seen him say plenty that wasn't Basically Decent, plenty that wasn't sympathetic, and a number of things that have flown in the face of the basic assumptions held by most involved in this thread (myself included)... but off the top of my head, I can't think of anything actually racist:
Merriam-Webster wrote:1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Perhaps not what he's said so much as the logic required to believe what he's said. See my little flight of historical fancy earlier on this page. To believe that each person is fully responsible for their own standing in this world, and there is absolutely no reason any given person can't be as successful as, say, Warren Buffett unless they're lazy or incompetent, requires the belief that racial inequality exists because black people are inferior to white people, whether in competence or work ethic. Racism is corequisite with that line of thinking.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

quantumcat42
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:06 pm UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby quantumcat42 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:57 pm UTC

So, he didn't actually say anything racist, but you can only understand what he means by assuming he is such?

Your breakdown of his position does not show a particularly nuanced understanding of what he's saying -- are you sure that assuming him to be racist isn't just a shortcut?

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:02 pm UTC

Who called him a racist? The closest the discussion veered to that was when doogly called much of what he said bigoted (this only came up on this page), otherwise the only mention of racists has been by Steroid himself.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby mmmcannibalism » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:06 pm UTC

Perhaps not what he's said so much as the logic required to believe what he's said. See my little flight of historical fancy earlier on this page. To believe that each person is fully responsible for their own standing in this world, and there is absolutely no reason any given person can't be as successful as, say, Warren Buffett unless they're lazy or incompetent, requires the belief that racial inequality exists because black people are inferior to white people, whether in competence or work ethic. Racism is corequisite with that line of thinking.


That doesn't hold up.

Just off the top of my head, you can still fully defend that viewpoint by saying...

If social mobility is low(something that would have to be explained) any forced racial inequality will lead to a long term inequality until social mobility corrects it. Hypothetically then, if we make up an arbitrary race(people with parents or grandparents named steve) and oppress them; their descendants will be statistically worse off long term.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Belial » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:07 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:That doesn't hold up.

Just off the top of my head, you can still fully defend that viewpoint by saying...

If social mobility is low(something that would have to be explained) any forced racial inequality will lead to a long term inequality until social mobility corrects it. Hypothetically then, if we make up an arbitrary race(people with parents or grandparents named steve) and oppress them; their descendants will be statistically worse off long term.


That's not "that viewpoint" anymore, though.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:08 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Perhaps not what he's said so much as the logic required to believe what he's said. See my little flight of historical fancy earlier on this page. To believe that each person is fully responsible for their own standing in this world, and there is absolutely no reason any given person can't be as successful as, say, Warren Buffett unless they're lazy or incompetent, requires the belief that racial inequality exists because black people are inferior to white people, whether in competence or work ethic. Racism is corequisite with that line of thinking.


That doesn't hold up.

Just off the top of my head, you can still fully defend that viewpoint by saying...

If social mobility is low(something that would have to be explained) any forced racial inequality will lead to a long term inequality until social mobility corrects it. Hypothetically then, if we make up an arbitrary race(people with parents or grandparents named steve) and oppress them; their descendants will be statistically worse off long term.


At which point one isn't fully responsible for their own standing in this world to the point they can just choose to be super rich.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Jessica » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:14 pm UTC

To be fair, Quantum - no one called them a racist. They were called a bigot (which, he has shown in his very classist views of poor people as being incompetent or inconsiderate - either they're too stupid to not be poor, or they're dicks who deserve to be poor) and they made a strawman call them racist, but no one here did. But, lets ignore that aspect.

Their views are wrong, and extremely ignorant (no man is an island, no matter how much you believe so, among many other espoused ideas). They also have the effect of supporting racism (as well as many other majority/minority conflicts), specifically by ignoring their effects, and blaming those who are hurt by it for their own problems. Again, not specifically (they don't say Blacks are inferior, they say that people who are poor are incompetent or inconsiderate) but the end result is still a problem. Pretending there aren't societal structures which favor one group over another does not make them go away. Also, removing the government isn't going to make them go away either.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

quantumcat42
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:06 pm UTC

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby quantumcat42 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:16 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:Who called him a racist? The closest the discussion veered to that was when doogly called much of what he said bigoted (this only came up on this page), otherwise the only mention of racists has been by Steroid himself.


You mean this, where the phrase "racist homophobe" comes up first?
doogly wrote:Also bro, it's not that people are saying 'all tea partiers are racist homophobes and you automatically must be one.' More like, 'every tea partier that has communicated their opinions where i could read or hear them has proven to be a racist homophobe, and you're no exception.' Cause seriously, read over your shit. It's pretty flagrantly bigoted.

Plus some others, directly or by fairly direct implication?
Jahoclave wrote:It's a good thing I'm not a genocidal racist so that I don't have to drink this tea in the knowledge that non-Europeans contributed far more to its existence than my preferred people.

doogly wrote:
Steroid wrote:I don't think that black people should be able to enslave white people; does that make me racist?

Nope, that is not sufficient. It's a good thing you've said other things though.

netcrusher88 wrote:You're reminding me of this character from Red Dead Redemption. You know, turn of the century anthropologist. Absolutely fascinated with how the savages were able to speak English, or something. Absolutely convinced they couldn't be civilized.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:31 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:Who called him a racist? The closest the discussion veered to that was when doogly called much of what he said bigoted (this only came up on this page), otherwise the only mention of racists has been by Steroid himself.

Oh, I'll call him a racist directly, if that helps.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Jessica » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:34 pm UTC

doogly wrote:
Bubbles McCoy wrote:Who called him a racist? The closest the discussion veered to that was when doogly called much of what he said bigoted (this only came up on this page), otherwise the only mention of racists has been by Steroid himself.
Oh, I'll call him a racist directly, if that helps.
It does.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:35 pm UTC

I don't know that it really does, as it's kind of a conversation ender, even if it is true.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby doogly » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:04 pm UTC

Many people are blind to their own privilege, and having conversations with them can be fruitful. Certainly helped for me. But steroid fucking wallows in it. Statements which are conversation enders might be not quite undesirable.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:05 pm UTC

And since he has already started pretending people are saying it flat out, actually saying it can be seen as a way to help him out so that something he says is based in reality.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
Noc
Put on her robe and wizard hat ALL NIGHT LONG
Posts: 1339
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:36 pm UTC
Location: Within a 50 mile radius.
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Noc » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:06 pm UTC

quantumcat42 wrote:So, he didn't actually say anything racist, but you can only understand what he means by assuming he is such?

Your breakdown of his position does not show a particularly nuanced understanding of what he's saying -- are you sure that assuming him to be racist isn't just a shortcut?

It's related to the "ism" part of racism, I think. The reason racism is an "ism" is because it's a systemic problem, and positions such as his are the argument for keeping the system going.

I think it's reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his beliefs aren't a thinly veiled rationalization for a violent grudge against any given minority. It's NOT "Man, I haaaate those people, and here's a TOTALLY REASONABLE REASON for letting me stomp over them with these jackboots of mine like I wanted to all along!"

The problem is a matter of his arguments "just happening" to be in support of a system that greatly benefits him and greatly screws over a lot of minorities, and that his response to this contains significant elements of "Yeah, whatever, fuck 'em. Not my problem!"

And "I care strongly when things happen to people like myself, but really don't give a shit when the same things happen to people like you" is an expression of prejudice.


Somewhere upthread someone made the analogy that throwing someone into a lake is a different thing than refusing to paddle out into the middle and hand them a life-jacket. The charge is that, while the Tea Party folks would bravely and tirelessly launch themselves into the water to, say, save a Christian being prevented from practicing their faith they somehow can't be bothered to lift a finger when a bunch of people try to shut down a mosque. A white person not getting a job because of affirmative action is terrible, but a black person not getting a job 'cause "Black people are bad workers?" Not their problem, and they don't see why they should suffer to fix it. A good, Christian child harassed in school because he insists on saying grace before his meals? Something needs to be done! A kid kicked to shit in the locker room 'cause he's gay? Pffft, whatever, it's high school, that's what you get for letting people find out about your shit.

And so on. It's not straight-up apathy to anything that doesn't affect them personally: it's not "Yeah, whatever, I'm not the one in the lake, therefore I throw no life jackets." It's notable fervor and sensitivity when something messes with people they identify with, and pointed hostility and indifference to matters fucking over people they don't.

(Note, I've only read the past page and a bit in detail, and I'm working through the rest to make sure that Steroid's position doesn't diverge too significantly from what I think it is. Apologies if it does! If discussion has not sufficiently moved on, I will amend this post if necessary.)

(Significantly, the liberal side of things tends to show a great deal of similar prejudice as well? Generally towards the affluent, to the tune of "Oh noes, you are sooo sad that we want to take some of your money NO ONE CARES YOU HAVE MORE." This still nags at me when I see it, but the defense that the affluent can weather this sort of callousness better than the folks who are already being oppressed seems to hold some degree of water. Though the idea that rich people "have it coming" because their ancestors climbed to the top of the pile through questionable means is just as problematic as the idea that, say, gay people "have it coming" because they just insist on being so disgustingly deviant.)

[Edited a few times for clarity and organization.]
Have you given up?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Belial » Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:46 am UTC

Noc wrote:(Significantly, the liberal side of things tends to show a great deal of similar prejudice as well? Generally towards the affluent, to the tune of "Oh noes, you are sooo sad that we want to take some of your money NO ONE CARES YOU HAVE MORE." This still nags at me when I see it, but the defense that the affluent can weather this sort of callousness better than the folks who are already being oppressed seems to hold some degree of water. Though the idea that rich people "have it coming" because their ancestors climbed to the top of the pile through questionable means is just as problematic as the idea that, say, gay people "have it coming" because they just insist on being so disgustingly deviant.)


To be fair, while I am entirely and ruthlessly unsympathetic when the government takes piles of money away from the rich, leaving them with only enough to live a ridiculously extravagant life and reap constantly increasing gains besides....

I would be equally unsympathetic to the poor if you took away piles of their money and yet somehow left them with enough to live a ridiculously extravagant life and reap constantly increasing gains besides.

It's just that the last one mysteriously never happens as described.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: What Tea Partiers Really Want

Postby Garm » Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:42 am UTC

I notice that conservatives get all up in arms about redistribution of wealth downward but actively encourage the opposite. Then the media encourages this and the conservatives turn around and call the media liberal. It's a nice system.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests