sahib
Well-known member
DaveP said:
Because they are no different than the young white men who do the same. It is not a race issue.
We've been here before
- Thread starter DaveP
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Because they are no different than the young white men who do the same. It is not a race issue.
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
JohnRoberts said:
I don't see your point...
JohnRoberts said:
Not everyone can get a gig because it's a competition on a market. And that's what the system is. But you immediately jump from that to people being different. If you want to overlay something then it is an already unfair system onto mother nature, which in turn is also not fair. Layering that up doesn't help, it exacerbates the problem.
JohnRoberts said:It is exactly arguments like this that program people to feel like victims that can not succeed, so why try. The government just needs to give them more assistance. :This is insidious for the unintended damage it does.
Well you're free to do what you want John, and ignoring reality and hoping others do to may seem appealing to you. It doesn't appeal to me though because reality has an annoying habit of, you know, being real.
JohnRoberts said:
But their wealth didn't scale linearly according to the labor they put in. If that was the case then bus-boys busting their asses in restaurants would be richer than Bill Gates.
For every one of your individual stories you can provide we can find stories of people who have worked incredibly hard and aren't even close to having the same amount of wealth. Anecdotal evidence isn't particularly convincing. Germany at least had significantly higher mobility than the US, and it is far more "socialist" than the US is.
Nature doesn't create people as equals, and on top of that we put a system that exacerbates that inequality. That's what we're doing. It's not about fostering a "victim mentality" so much as just waking people up to that fact so that other solutions can be found. You're winning, so what do you care? The blame for lack of success is placed by you onto those who don't succeed so of course to you the system appears to be working.
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
I was talking about the US primarily....
DaveP said:
I don't see how that logically connects to what I was saying, even if I was talking about Britain.
DaveP said:
So it seems to me that the issue still could be financial along with just good old racism. So even if they didn't bring resentment with them from the colonies I'm pretty sure they were about as disillusioned as some blacks in the US after having fought in Vietnam, meaning that they risked their lives for a nation only to find racism restricting what their options were when they got back "home".
Now, my point is solely that just because there isn't the same type and extent of racism today, this group can surely be in a crappier situation today because of said financial problems which in turn stem from prior racism. It's just to say that of course we shouldn't automatically blame current white people for being racists that prevent current black people from prospering, just that we can't ignore that history is what it is.
Some people try their hardest to not acknowledge that there's a quite frankly surprisingly large amount of racism still existence, and this massacre sort of illuminates that I think. I think John's right that there are other issues that are really important, such as economics, but in my opinion the problem is that by "ignoring" or "downplaying" the widespread nature of racism AND then not see the real problem with the system in which we all exist you're just exacerbating both problems. Relatively speaking poor people of color will get angry because they experience racism and just see it downplayed or ignored, and then in addition are told that they're just stuck financially because they're just incapable or lazy.
DaveP said:
But who's peddling that fashion on a daily basis? Turn on the TV. Go out and look around on all the billboards. Watch a movie. We're perpetually bombarded with the messages of beauty, success etc, and they key to them all seem to be consumption. Of course people are going to get expensive crap and feel they in at least part succeeded. And it's exactly what businesses want. It doesn't do to on the one hand be pro-business and pro-consumption yet then complain that people consume above their means when oneself contributes to such behavior. I'm not pointing my finger at you btw, just making a general observation here.
More than a "self-esteem issue" it seems to be a societal one.
DaveP said:
You see race and skin color. I don't.
Girls do better in school in a bunch of countries. It appears to be about something else, something primal and human, not about race. And if blacks were better fathers in Africa rather than in the UK, then it appears the UK is the problem, not race.
Matt,
In very brutal terms, what you are advocating is a neutralisation of evolution. We may not like it, but that is how the planet runs its business. Paying everyone the same whether they work hard or not has not worked despite the best efforts of communism to exalt its workers to greater efforts, it is a great system on paper but it does not take into account human nature.
Capitalism is a harsh master true, but it does at least offer people freedom to succeed to the level of their ability if they are given the opportunity. It is the government's job to ensure that equality of opportunity exists for everyone, but like every other aspect of life their efforts are less than perfect.
Best
DaveP
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
If I understand your point correctly it's in principle pretty weak. There are a great deal of inequality and "flaws" due to evolution which we do not accept and have agreed to trying to thwart and/or eradicate. That we're working against human nature doesn't make it a bad thing. It's simply not a good argument. It'd be like throwing our hands up in the air and going "Oh, well, humans are violent people, so who are we to try to neutralize thousands of years of evolution leading to some people becoming rapists?"
We try to fix things that aren't working, because it makes society better if we succeed.
DaveP said:
Who said anything about paying everyone the same? And I don't recall saying the alternative I'd propose and support was communism... Did I miss a memo or two?!?!?
If anything pro-Capitalists are pretty adamant that paying people according to their effort is pretty much what they do NOT want.
DaveP said:
People aren't really free to succeed if the opportunity isn't there, practically speaking, and the latter most certainly isn't equal to people. If you want to make it equal you end up with a bunch of problems. Does education make a difference? If 'yes', then it's the government's job to equalize it so that everyone gets and equally good or poor education and thus equal opportunity (using what you stated above as a principle). Of course wealthy people will object to that. The same will apply to health care. And living conditions. At the end of the day pro-Capitalists can try to convince others as much as they like that the system provides equal opportunity, but the truth is that it doesn't, and pro-Capitalists don't want it either.
In striving to overcome human nature, we often ignore it, assume we are above it... and it ends up getting the better of us.
Hate and bigotry are human nature, and they both come in many forms. They're always irrational. Some accept this flaw in the human structure, some don't. Those who do tend to realize themselves are flawed, those who don't tend to assume all others are.
Hate and bigotry are human nature, and they both come in many forms. They're always irrational. Some accept this flaw in the human structure, some don't. Those who do tend to realize themselves are flawed, those who don't tend to assume all others are.
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
Krcwell said:
Please don't take this the wrong way - I react because I've done enough commercials to be somewhat easily.... annoyed by sound-bites...
"accept" is really undefined above. What on earth does "accept" mean? Do nothing or do as much as we can to make things better? This is something we'll have to actually think about, deeply, in all seriousness, in the upcoming decade(s). Medical science will progress to the point where we'll be able to mess around quite a bit in humans, and if we find that some traits are undesirable we will have to figure out a way to deal with the possibility of "fixing" that. I'm talking about ethics.
And the last line I think is just trite. Sorry for being offensive. There really are people that aren't bigots you know....
ruairioflaherty
Well-known member
Krcwell said:
That doesn't strike me as fair Krcwell. Mattias is making good points and teasing out issues well, I don't see him just criticizing others, just asking tough questions.
I agree with many of his perspectives, maybe it's about being a European in the U.S.? A place that I love.
DaveP said:
I meant to update... This is the church I was talking about. 675. Not the oldest, but unbelieveably cool.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmesbury_Abbey
ruairioflaherty said:
I have no issue with the points brought up. I have issue with the manner in which they are both brought and supported.
I see many supporting their arguments with in depth personal stories, experiences, etc... approaching this with an open mind. I have a much greater understanding of Mississippi thanks to John's input. I have a much greater understanding of the European mindset thanks to DaveP and others. What Mattias brings are vague personal references that seem like talking points, at times with an attitude of superiority. I don't find this helpful.
Whether or not you agree is up to you.
Edit: and wouldn't ya know it, being critical of others DID make me feel better for a moment! Human nature! I had many snarky lines to follow this, but that's not helpful. I accept this is my human nature, and I don't indulge it.
Matt,
This conversation isn't all about you, you know. I was giving an example of the other extreme with Communism, most people realised that.
Let's get things straight, I am not an advocate of Capitalism as the perfect system, that has yet to be invented. But working for two years in the jungle in the Congo when I was a young man, gave me a sense of perspective that has stayed with me through the years. I realised that for all its faults, what we had in the West was an enormous achievement. I also fully realise the sacrifices of earlier generations who gave their lives for our freedom.
What we have is a "work in progress" and it can only be improved by fully understanding its workings. Just saying this is wrong and more should be spent on this or that or some injustice or other without equal rigour and attention as to where the money is coming from is going to make the world like Greece. Anyone can run a deficit, but in the end some generation has to pick up the tab. In all your conversations I never heard anything about wealth creation, only redistribution.
Let me give you an example of what I mean, take the provision of clean drinking water in Africa. It sounds like a pure clean objective. But bad drinking water has been a brake on population so that food production in the area was sustainable. So you provide clean water and people thrive and the population goes through the roof and then there is not enough water again, and it is your grandchildren who have a problem down the line ten times bigger than you had. One has to fully understand the brutal truth of Malthusian principles before you try to "fix" things. Clean water must be combined with a birth control programme and sustainable development.
Taking all your thoughts and comments as a whole, you come across as a frustrated unhappy man, someone ill at ease in their environment. I recommend that you travel to some other countries where corruption is rife and endemic, after that move on to some countries where they have religious police checking on you, after that you could try some countries that have open sewers and cripples begging in the street. When, and if, you get back to NY and the US of A again, I promise it will look better to you than it does now.
Best
DaveP
sahib
Well-known member
DaveP said:
Dave,
There is a whole section of white population in the UK that we generally do not know much about.
I used to take my son to the park to ride his bike and I can't tell you the number of young guys that I ended up chatting who were on their fourth child from four different girlfriends. In fact this seemed to me that it was something to boast about.
I have never met a black guy who told me his girlfriend was abused by her father, but I met two white guys in the space of one summer who did. To me for somebody to tell this to a total stranger so casually is as shocking as the abuse. That means the person has become totally a matter of fact about it.
Sahib,
You are right, there is a whole underclass of whites who have been dumped in council estates where that kind of stuff goes on.
The social services do not have the staff or the funding to deal with it.
In the fifties and sixties and long before that, these men found manual work in docks, mines and factories and it gave them some self-respect. My Dad told me that if he complained that a schoolteacher had caned him, my grandfather would take his belt off and give him a good hiding for disrespecting the teacher. I come from London white working class people who have been watermen and lightermen, father and son, on the Thames since 1735. That way of life is long gone but alternative employment for that class of men is not easily found.
best
DaveP
You are right, there is a whole underclass of whites who have been dumped in council estates where that kind of stuff goes on.
The social services do not have the staff or the funding to deal with it.
In the fifties and sixties and long before that, these men found manual work in docks, mines and factories and it gave them some self-respect. My Dad told me that if he complained that a schoolteacher had caned him, my grandfather would take his belt off and give him a good hiding for disrespecting the teacher. I come from London white working class people who have been watermen and lightermen, father and son, on the Thames since 1735. That way of life is long gone but alternative employment for that class of men is not easily found.
best
DaveP
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
Krcwell said:
By stating what you did you called me a bigot. I did not call you one.
Who's the one criticizing others here?
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
Krcwell said:
Really? Which ones are you talking about?
Krcwell said:
You could have addressed the points I made and refuted them rather than resort to an ad hominem attack. How is the latter "helpful"?
Again; who's doing what here?
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
My question didn't stem from narcissism, it was the result of trying to understand why you'd bring it up. Virtually nobody is advocating that which you bring up, so you could just as well have used National-Socialism or Fascism instead to make the same point that Capitalism is supposedly better. It just seemed like you either thought I advocated Communism in which case the comment would be relevant from your perspective, or it just seemed, not relevant.
DaveP said:
To be fair, many gave their lives for the state, which in turn waged war for the benefit of the wealthy and in power, not for the “freedom” of the citizens. WWII is obviously an exception. And "Guns, Germs and Steel" and all that...
DaveP said:
Ok, well, now I think I'm right in thinking you're addressing an opinion of mine, right? But please quote me where I was advocating state-mandated wealth “redistribution” and refute that point.
Secondly, if wealth is stuff and money then when a worker makes a T-shirt and it's sent to H&M wealth is redistributed (to H&M). When a person buys that T-shirt at H&M he pays money for it which, since it's wealth, is again wealth redistribution. The term “wealth redistribution” is one used by people who don't like high taxes. It's not as obvious a concept as it's made to seem.
DaveP said:
But again, what does that have to do with anything I said? I mean, if anything, Capitalism is rife with shortsightedness due to the profit motive being applied narrowly and in the short term. An oil company dumping chemicals or crude into the environment does it because it's cheaper than environmentally friendly disposal. Management of resources is an issue for all systems regardless, I don't dispute that. So I fail to see the point.
DaveP said:
I've traveled quite a bit, but I thank you for what appears to be yet another post that is off-topc and on-man. This is how it often goes when politics and religion is discussed.
Why is it that if we choose to discuss something it has to resort to "there's stuff that's worse" rather than just discussing that something? You don't think I'm aware that Saudi Arabia is worse than the US? Or that Honduras is? Or Iraq?... Of course I do. But this discussion wasn't about them, it was about something else.
I've been too busy to spend my whole day posting here with point by point rebuttals, but lets see if we can keep talking more about policies and events, and less about each other. We should be able to disagree with each other without getting personal. Once that happens, the defensive response, and desire to counter-attack personally shifts the energy away from useful information exchange and into name calling.
As long as I'm on this topic, it is more useful to talk about knowable facts than, speculation, while often that is the only way some events can be discussed .
We're all friends here I hope.
JR
PS: Funny, yesterday I took a phone call from a NYC studio guy and apparently he didn't care for my response, after a string of F-bombs he hung up... good riddance. Kind of reminds me of when I lived up there. 8)
As long as I'm on this topic, it is more useful to talk about knowable facts than, speculation, while often that is the only way some events can be discussed .
We're all friends here I hope.
JR
PS: Funny, yesterday I took a phone call from a NYC studio guy and apparently he didn't care for my response, after a string of F-bombs he hung up... good riddance. Kind of reminds me of when I lived up there. 8)
I actually admire Matt for his tenacity, idealism and obvious intellect, the comments I made were because he generally came across to me as unhappy, and frustrated with the way things were. Going to places that are worse does make you think how lucky you are and is good therapy.
Look what I want to hear is something practical and costed, so take this for an example. If we were to build solar stations in the desert for electricity generation, we could save on oil imports, help the environment reduce emissions and use the money saved to pay for free childcare to get people back to work, win win win. This is what I mean about understanding implications and outcomes. That was my point about Water in Africa.
Its just a stupid example and it's not costed but its the kind of proposal that I would like to see from the Left rather than bemoaning the status quo. I do realise that this kind of initiative would have to be protected by government because the vested interests would try to stop it dead, but it is government's job to level the playing field or act as a referee.
best
DaveP
Look what I want to hear is something practical and costed, so take this for an example. If we were to build solar stations in the desert for electricity generation, we could save on oil imports, help the environment reduce emissions and use the money saved to pay for free childcare to get people back to work, win win win. This is what I mean about understanding implications and outcomes. That was my point about Water in Africa.
Its just a stupid example and it's not costed but its the kind of proposal that I would like to see from the Left rather than bemoaning the status quo. I do realise that this kind of initiative would have to be protected by government because the vested interests would try to stop it dead, but it is government's job to level the playing field or act as a referee.
best
DaveP
