Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#727 Apr 21 2015 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Saying "you're wrong" isn't an argument btw.
Probably because it's a statement.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#729 Apr 21 2015 at 9:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
I still find it hilarious that gbaji will argue with a lawyer about the law, a scientist on how research is conducted, and a person of color about what the political priorities of minorities should be, but he'll defer to those professionally trained in sandwich artistry when dealing in their craft. I don't think I will ever get over this bizarre non-sequitur.

Edited, Apr 21st 2015 11:12pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#730 Apr 22 2015 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Well yeah, he has to eat the sandwich. Nobody really cares what scientists are up to.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#731 Apr 22 2015 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Are you implying that those aren't scientists in the Subway test kitchens, hard at work researching whether or not ham and cheese taste well together?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#732 Apr 22 2015 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
I just assumed they made whatever the CEO's newest girlfriend thought was a good idea.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#733 Apr 22 2015 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Are you implying that the CEO's newest girlfriend somehow isn't qualified to be a sandwich scientist?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#734 Apr 22 2015 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Misogyny!
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#735 Apr 22 2015 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
No, we're still talking about tha-

Wait, no, sorry. That's all about ethics in game journalism.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#736 Apr 22 2015 at 3:35 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

I've already answered this: Because the Left spends an enormous amount of effort using the sorts of things we've been talking about as arguments for why blacks should vote Democrat. As I've said repeatedly, blacks are subjected to far more social pressure than any other group to vote as a block for the Democrats. Again, the whole "uncle tom" thing is huge here. As I mentioned earlier, this moniker isn't just applied to politicians, it's applied to voters as well.

I guess what I don't understand is why you're asking this question, when I addressed it right in the very next section you quoted.
Hispanics, bible thumpers and homosexuals have just as much social pressure to vote a certain way. Remember our conversation about ignorance vs stupidity? I said it isn't ignorance when someone is telling you the truth. So what is it? You should also look up the term "uncle Tom". I will discuss this in the RINO section.


Gbaji wrote:
No. It's not. as I just said "Everything else is like arguing about the seating arrangements on the Titanic". How is the "laundry list" a solution? It's not a solution. It's a list of symptoms. How do you "solve" gun control? How do you "solve" opposition to private schools? How do you "solve" opposition to voter ID? None of those are things you can solve. All of them are issues you can use to rally groups of people to vote a given way though.

Which is the point. The Democrats don't want to solve any of those "problems". They want to perpetuate them, because as long as they exist, they can use them to manipulate people into voting for them.



Gbaji wrote:

That's not remotely accurate though. If you were actually bringing up other issues and attempting to argue for or propose solutions to them, you might vaguely have a point. But it's abundantly obvious that your sole reason for bringing them up is to *not* discuss the problems about welfare that I've been talking about.


Gbaji wrote:
If the government were spending billions of dollars subsidizing McDonalds on the idea that it was promoting healthy food, and I was arguing that we should remove the subsidy because McDonalds food is not only not healthy, but actually unhealthy, and that by subsidizing it, we're making the problem worse, and you responded by talking about other restaurants with unhealthy food, you'd be going off on a tangent.

I'm talking about whether we should continue to fund a program that our government spends billions of dollars on, under the claim that it will not just address the symptoms of poverty, but as stated by Johnson when created, end the need for such assistance in the future for the very simple reason that it has utterly failed to do that, and arguably actually makes poverty worse by making it harder for the recipients of the benefits to get themselves out of their impoverished state. I have further argued (you know, it seems like I've said this several times now), that since African Americans were disproportionately poor when these welfare programs were implemented the negative effects of welfare in terms of trapping those already poor in an impoverished state has disproportionately harmed them as a group, and has served to inhibit black financial success over the time since it was introduced. I have further argued that since high crime is correlated with high poverty, that this disproportionate poverty rate that blacks suffer also results in them suffering from disproportionate criminal rates, which is why we see the kinds of stats that were released in the DoJ report on Ferguson recently.

That's how it's relevant. We can talk about other issues if you want. By all means. Bring one up, and propose a solution. But all you've done is say "but what about XXX?". You've presented no solutions, nor any means by which discussing such things serves any purpose other than to derail the conversation away from the issue with funding welfare that I originally started talking about.


Gbaji wrote:

You haven't proposed a single solution. You've just listed off complaints.


Gbaji wrote:
I've written at length about the ways in which welfare does exactly that. Anything that grants someone a benefit as the result of a condition also acts as an incentive for that condition. In this case "being poor" is the condition. I guess what I find stunning about your responses is that instead of actually responding to my points about welfare, you keep trying to change the subject to something else. If you don't think welfare is a problem, then say that and defend it. But instead of doing that, you just say "But here's this other thing over here. Let's talk about that instead!".

Again those other subjects may be interesting all by themselves, but they aren't valid responses to the argument I'm making here. Additionally, many of these side topics you keep bringing up are themselves merely symptoms of the problem I'm talking about. Right there at the top of this post, is a paragraph by me showing how several of those things are themselves the result of black poverty. So if we want to fix those things, the correct starting point is to talk about black poverty. But for some bizarre reason you don't want to talk about that. Heck. I'd even accept a counter argument about something else that is more responsible for black poverty than welfare. That would at least be on topic. Somewhat.

There is no single policy to remove poverty. Removing poverty takes a series of policies working together. Those aren't "other issues" or "complaints", but parts of the problem of poverty. You refusing to acknowledge that or agreeing to them isn't the same as me not providing you the answer that you keep insisting that I'm avoiding. You're taking something complex and simplifying it to "welfare!". Your logic of "poverty"~>"Welfare"~>"more poverty" ~> "crime" ~> "unjustly stopping black people even though the statistics don't support it while ignoring emails acknowledging unfair treatment in order to make money and saving money for friends and family" doesn't make any sense.

Gbaji wrote:
What? When? Let's review again (and once again put the context back in since you keep stripping it out and then conveniently pretending the conversation was different than it was):

Gonna put the context back in, because you keep stripping it out, and I suspect it confuses you.


Gbaji wrote:
How about instead of asking me to go look somewhere else for your response, you do what I asked and actually respond. Don't tell me you did it earlier. Don't insist you linked to something else, and then not bother to find said link and provide it (again, if you actually did so earlier). Give me a response. This "I already answered this, but I won't tell you what I said, or when, or how" is getting really tiresome.

If you think you already answered something, then you can say that, but then repeat the answer. Like I did above.

I have no clue what "cite" you are talking about btw.
What part of "Read below for examples of you providing examples "remotely close" to blaming poverty on welfare.I'll bold it for you." don't you understand? If you spent the same amount of effort reading as you do writing, then you wouldn't be so confused.


Gbaji wrote:
Yes. But just as eating at McDonalds will decrease your odds of being healthy, being on welfare decreases your odds of being successful. The fact that it's possible for something to happen isn't the issue. Whether an action we're doing increases or decreases the odd of that something happening is the issue.
It completely depends on your diet. That's your problem, you assume the worst case scenario of milk shake and cheese burgers as opposed to the low caloric healthier choices.

#737 Apr 23 2015 at 12:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Are you implying that the CEO's newest girlfriend somehow isn't qualified to be a sandwich scientist?
On the contrary, I'm implying she has all the qualifications that are necessary.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#738 Apr 23 2015 at 7:18 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I wont press on issues you ignored so I can better focus the conversation

Gbaji wrote:

Just so we're clear. Your point is that blacks nearly universally vote in alignment with a set of political positions which Democrats support and which Republicans oppose. Right?

Gbaji wrote:
Uh... Really? That's not circular at all. You just said that's what black people do. You get that "Republicans never support what blacks care about" is the flip side of "blacks vote along party lines", right?

Here's the question though. And I want you to actually stop and think about it. Do you think that black people started out holding all of those positions as a condition of voting first and then the GOP chose to adopt a platform that was in opposition to blacks? Or do you think that maybe the GOP has held these positions all along and over time blacks have been somehow taught to hold positions in opposition to the GOP? It's just that I'm seeing a massive cart before horse scenario here.

Sigh. Let me put the context back in (again).
Voting along party lines is an absolute. In other words, no matter how bad your party's candidate is, you will always vote along party lines. Christie pulled over 1/5 of the black vote in a blue state. He was so much of a threat that MSNBC went "Benghazi" on him on bridgegate. However, Christie was shunned from the party. Popular views have changed within the last decade or two. So, you can't shun politicians that appeal to blacks and then claim that blacks vote along party lines. I'm not denying that there isn't social pressure to vote one way, but that didn't come first, it came second.

Gbaji wrote:

Why include the word immigration then?
Because I was giving an example of how politicians who don't follow the cookie cutter support platform gets attacked? Point being, this tactic prevents the expansion of either party.

Gbaji wrote:
Honestly? Because, as I mentioned earlier, conservatives weren't nearly as much in an uproar as liberals were talking about how much of an uproar this caused among conservatives. I honestly didn't know what you were even talking about. I googled it, and the first thing I could find controversial about Jeb Bush was some comments he made about immigration. So I responded to that.

I've said this before Alma, and I'll say it again. I'm not a mind reader. I don't magically know about or care about the exact same things that you know about and care about. If you want to make a reference to something, don't assume that I know what you're talking about when you say "that thing that happened last week to <so and so>". Include a link to a news story or something that talks about the specific thing. You do this a lot.

But in case you're still confused, I don't have a clue what exact education thing you think Jeb said that you think blacks agree with but that conservatives oppose. So how about starting by saying what that is, and perhaps include a link to a source for this? Just a thought.
First, you're conflating the topic of education being important to blacks with me providing an example of a Republican being shunned for not being a cookie cutter. Secondly, if you're unaware of JEBs controversy, then you're obviously not following politics, which means you have no clue why black people vote a particular way.

Gbaji wrote:
Great. Here's the problem (again), welfare makes it more likely that people will choose not to do better. I easily spent 3 or 4 whole posts explaining the logic of this and how welfare benefits can influence people's decisions regarding upward mobility. Heck. someone else even linked a handy chart showing that at certain income levels increasing your earnings actually decreases the amount of net income because of welfare cut offs. I further argued that even without that negative incentive effect, the mere fact that welfare reduces the earnings increase relative to effort curve will have an effect on incentive.


Let me also point out that putting in the caveat "unless they choose not to do X" is a ridiculous cop out. By that argument nothing is effective at anything. Fining people for littering doesn't reduce littering unless people choose not to litter. Speed limits don't decrease average speed on the road because people only slow down if they choose to. It's moronic. The point of those things is to influence people's choices. In the same way, providing people benefits so as to make working less pay more, will tend to result in people working less. Period. This is such a basic concept that it's hard for me to figure out if you really don't get it, or if you're just pretending to because you need to support a political position you already hold.

Again: Cart before horse. If you didn't already have a vested political interest in defending welfare, and were looking at it objectively, it's hard to imagine you'd be defending it.
Cop out? No, it's called life. There are several scenarios, especially dealing with finance, that can either be a life saver or cause you to go further in debt. Just like a blind conservative, you pretend that this only applies to the less fortunate.

Edit: Had to reword a sentence or two for clarity

Edited, Apr 24th 2015 2:01pm by Almalieque
#739 Apr 24 2015 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
There is no single policy to remove poverty. Removing poverty takes a series of policies working together. Those aren't "other issues" or "complaints", but parts of the problem of poverty. You refusing to acknowledge that or agreeing to them isn't the same as me not providing you the answer that you keep insisting that I'm avoiding.


When I say that the reason the car isn't driving well is because it has a flat tire, and then point to a nail sticking through the tire causing it to be flat, and suggesting we should remove the nail and patch the tire so we can continue driving, you responding with "but there are nails sticking in those pieces of wood over there" is not helpful to the conversation. Yes. Those are nails. Yes. They are sticking into something. But that doesn't help us get the car moving down the road. That's why I keep calling those things distractions.

Quote:
You're taking something complex and simplifying it to "welfare!". Your logic of "poverty"~>"Welfare"~>"more poverty" ~> "crime" ~> "unjustly stopping black people even though the statistics don't support it while ignoring emails acknowledging unfair treatment in order to make money and saving money for friends and family" doesn't make any sense.


I remember years ago working with a group of fellow IT engineers on some issue. The issue was a very large and complex problem with how we were managing our namespace (honestly don't recall the details now, this was like 15+ years ago). Point being that some of the engineers were of the mindset that we should not do *anything* unless we had a plan to do *everything*. But the problem was really huge and hard to manage and had multiple moving parts and inter dependencies. My argument (which ultimately won out) was to first know where we wanted to go and then find small pieces of the puzzle we could change in ways that didn't break the existing system, but which would work in the new system down the line as well. This way we could do each of the small bits first, get things working, and then tackle the more complex bits over time. Basically, break a huge problem into a logical series of small ones that could be more easily managed.

It's not a radical concept. It's how you solve big problems. My point here is that I observed back then (and observe here as well) that when you argue that the problem is "too big" or "too complex", you may want to solve the problem, but the result is that nothing gets done. Sometimes, you do have to take one step, and then another, and another, all moving in the direction of a solution. I'm not arguing that welfare is the sole problem. I'm saying that it is *a* problem, and we should solve it. We certainly should not argue against solving it because it wont solve "everything". Because if we do that then we will ultimately solve nothing at all. There is no reason we can't look at welfare and its effects even in the absence of looking at and addressing other potential causes of problems. Right?


Quote:
What part of "Read below for examples of you providing examples "remotely close" to blaming poverty on welfare.I'll bold it for you." don't you understand? If you spent the same amount of effort reading as you do writing, then you wouldn't be so confused.


Um... Because all you did was bold this:

gbaji wrote:
Does welfare create and/or perpetuate poverty among the poor? My argument is that it does, and that blacks are disproportionately poor today because they were disproportionately poor at the time we introduced many of our welfare programs.


Which is not the same as me "blaming poverty on welfare". If welfare was the sole cause of poverty, then how could blacks be disproportionately poor prior to the introduction of our welfare programs? Poverty creates and/or perpetuates poverty among those who are already poor. I thought I was super clear about this. This is not "blaming poverty on welfare". It's blaming the perpetuation of poverty among the poor on welfare. It's about how welfare changes poverty from a temporary condition which one may fall into, but often can get themselves out of, and into which their children have a decent chance of escaping, into something which becomes generational. Meaning that the children of those on welfare are much more likely to be poor as adults than the children of the poor were prior to the introduction of welfare.

That is the argument I've been making all along. Welfare didn't make black people poor. A host of historical causes did. Slavery for a start. Then Jim Crow, and segregation. But right in the midst of the civil rights movement, when those things were being dismantled and blacks might finally have a chance to improve their relative economic condition as a group within our society, what happened? Welfare. Welfare has the effect of making those who receive it less likely to escape the base poverty condition. Again, I've argued this like a dozen times now. Welfare didn't cause blacks to be disproportionately poor. They were already disproportionately poor when most welfare programs were implemented. What it has done is keep them in that condition ever since.

I'm just not sure how many times I have to explain this to you before you'll get it. I have never said that welfare is "to blame for black poverty". Other factors caused that. But welfare is to blame for perpetuating that condition. No one becomes poor because of welfare. But if they are already poor, or are born into a poor family, their odds of escaping poverty is much lower than it would be if welfare programs did not exist.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Yes. But just as eating at McDonalds will decrease your odds of being healthy, being on welfare decreases your odds of being successful. The fact that it's possible for something to happen isn't the issue. Whether an action we're doing increases or decreases the odd of that something happening is the issue.
It completely depends on your diet. That's your problem, you assume the worst case scenario of milk shake and cheese burgers as opposed to the low caloric healthier choices.


Again though, you're missing the point. People who regularly eat at fast food restaurants are more likely to have an unhealthy diet than people who do not. Of course someone can choose to eat a salad or other relatively healthy food item at McDonalds, but that's not what they sell the most of. I'm not looking just at the worst case scenario. I'm looking at the "average" scenario. Someone's buying all those Big Macs, right? It's about statistical outcomes. You're arguing the exception as though it somehow outweighs the rule.

Edited, Apr 24th 2015 7:23pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#740 Apr 24 2015 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Voting along party lines is an absolute. In other words, no matter how bad your party's candidate is, you will always vote along party lines. Christie pulled over 1/5 of the black vote in a blue state. He was so much of a threat that MSNBC went "Benghazi" on him on bridgegate. However, Christie was shunned from the party. Popular views have changed within the last decade or two. So, you can't shun politicians that appeal to blacks and then claim that blacks vote along party lines. I'm not denying that there isn't social pressure to vote one way, but that didn't come first, it came second.


I suspect you're twisting facts to suite your narrative (again). Christie was hardly shunned by the party. WTF? Where do you get this stuff? He's been criticized for a number of things (as have most GOP politicians, so he's hardly unique), winning black votes isn't one of them. I'm also reasonably certain you're applying an unusably subjective meaning of "shunned".

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:

Why include the word immigration then?
Because I was giving an example of how politicians who don't follow the cookie cutter support platform gets attacked? Point being, this tactic prevents the expansion of either party.


Ok. Then why is it wrong for me to follow that example? You mentioned immigration. I responded on the issue of immigration. But I'm not allowed to do that because you really wanted to talk about education reform. WTF? If it's an example for you to use, then it's an example for me to respond to.

You're being more batshit crazy than normal here.

Quote:
First, you're conflating the topic of education being important to blacks with me providing an example of a Republican being shunned for not being a cookie cutter.


Because you said that Bush was shunned for doing something that appealed to black voters. You gave "immigration" and "education" as your only two examples of this. So now I'm not allowed to talk about education either? So... You just wrote random words on the screen then? I'm not following you here.

Quote:
Secondly, if you're unaware of JEBs controversy, then you're obviously not following politics, which means you have no clue why black people vote a particular way.


How about you tell me what Bush said, why it's controversial, and how on earth it ties into your assumption that GOP politicians are shunned by the GOP if they do something that appeals to black voters. I'm not going to play 20 questions here. You're the one making the allegation. You need to support it.


Alma wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Let me also point out that putting in the caveat "unless they choose not to do X" is a ridiculous cop out. By that argument nothing is effective at anything. Fining people for littering doesn't reduce littering unless people choose not to litter. Speed limits don't decrease average speed on the road because people only slow down if they choose to. It's moronic. The point of those things is to influence people's choices. In the same way, providing people benefits so as to make working less pay more, will tend to result in people working less. Period. This is such a basic concept that it's hard for me to figure out if you really don't get it, or if you're just pretending to because you need to support a political position you already hold.

Cop out? No, it's called life. There are several scenarios, especially dealing with finance, that can either be a life saver or cause you to go further in debt. Just like a blind conservative, you pretend that this only applies to the less fortunate.


Huh? What on earth does that have to do with what I just said?

Dismissing factors in the world around us that influence our decisions because "it only affects you if you make <choice X>" is a cop out. This is true of anyone. I never freaking said it's only true of the less fortunate. When FHA created mortgage backed securities as a way for investment banks to fulfill their CRA obligations, they created a false "free money" situation that strongly influenced investors to invest in these things, leading to the freaking housing collapse. Were these very wealthy investment groups like AIG forced by buy those securities? No. But the market effects of FHA and Fannie/Freddie influenced their decisions in a way that proved harmful to them.

This is not unique to any group. Everyone. Rich. Poor. Educated. Uneducated. Black. White. Whatever. If you change the perceived gain/loss equation to any group of people, you will change their behavior. Not every single individual, because we all have free will. But you will create a statistical outcome difference among the outcomes of any group that you do this to.

I'm honestly not sure why you're arguing that this isn't true. How do you think people make choices if not by looking at the perceived cost versus perceived gain? If we affect the factors of that equation (or even just the perception of those factors), we will affect the statistical choices that are made.

Edited, Apr 24th 2015 7:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#741 Apr 24 2015 at 10:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Are you implying that the CEO's newest girlfriend somehow isn't qualified to be a sandwich scientist?
On the contrary, I'm implying she has all the qualifications that are necessary.

something something kitchen joke.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#742 Apr 25 2015 at 7:10 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

When I say that the reason the car isn't driving well is because it has a flat tire, and then point to a nail sticking through the tire causing it to be flat, and suggesting we should remove the nail and patch the tire so we can continue driving, you responding with "but there are nails sticking in those pieces of wood over there" is not helpful to the conversation. Yes. Those are nails. Yes. They are sticking into something. But that doesn't help us get the car moving down the road. That's why I keep calling those things distractions.
Except I'm arguing that welfare isn't the "nail". I'm arguing that the "nail" is actually several objects, not a singular object that you could just remove and carry on.

Gbaji wrote:
I remember years ago working with a group of fellow IT engineers on some issue. The issue was a very large and complex problem with how we were managing our namespace (honestly don't recall the details now, this was like 15+ years ago). Point being that some of the engineers were of the mindset that we should not do *anything* unless we had a plan to do *everything*. But the problem was really huge and hard to manage and had multiple moving parts and inter dependencies. My argument (which ultimately won out) was to first know where we wanted to go and then find small pieces of the puzzle we could change in ways that didn't break the existing system, but which would work in the new system down the line as well. This way we could do each of the small bits first, get things working, and then tackle the more complex bits over time. Basically, break a huge problem into a logical series of small ones that could be more easily managed.

It's not a radical concept. It's how you solve big problems. My point here is that I observed back then (and observe here as well) that when you argue that the problem is "too big" or "too complex", you may want to solve the problem, but the result is that nothing gets done. Sometimes, you do have to take one step, and then another, and another, all moving in the direction of a solution. I'm not arguing that welfare is the sole problem. I'm saying that it is *a* problem, and we should solve it. We certainly should not argue against solving it because it wont solve "everything". Because if we do that then we will ultimately solve nothing at all. There is no reason we can't look at welfare and its effects even in the absence of looking at and addressing other potential causes of problems. Right?
I literally followed the same exact logic by providing the laundry list of concerns. You simply dismissed it because it didn't label welfare as a major factor.

Gbaji wrote:

Which is not the same as me "blaming poverty on welfare"
It doesn't have to be the same because you said "I never even expressed it in terms remotely similar to that.". Saying that welfare perpetuates poverty among the poor is remotely similar to blaming poverty on welfare because without welfare, then according to your argument, poverty wouldn't perpetuate.

Gbaji wrote:

Again though, you're missing the point. People who regularly eat at fast food restaurants are more likely to have an unhealthy diet than people who do not. Of course someone can choose to eat a salad or other relatively healthy food item at McDonalds, but that's not what they sell the most of. I'm not looking just at the worst case scenario. I'm looking at the "average" scenario. Someone's buying all those Big Macs, right? It's about statistical outcomes. You're arguing the exception as though it somehow outweighs the rule.
These people don't have the option of whether to eat out or cook home. It's either eat out (in this example) or don't eat at all. You are claiming that they are simply better without the food. I'm arguing that they are better with the food, they just have to make smart decisions. Now, if you were arguing for welfare reform to create a framework to reduce the likelihood of individuals making poor decisions, then I would agree. However, you're simply saying that the concept itself is bad.


Gbaji wrote:

I suspect you're twisting facts to suite your narrative (again). Christie was hardly shunned by the party. WTF? Where do you get this stuff? He's been criticized for a number of things (as have most GOP politicians, so he's hardly unique), winning black votes isn't one of them. I'm also reasonably certain you're applying an unusably subjective meaning of "shunned".


Gbaji wrote:

How about you tell me what Bush said, why it's controversial, and how on earth it ties into your assumption that GOP politicians are shunned by the GOP if they do something that appeals to black voters. I'm not going to play 20 questions here. You're the one making the allegation. You need to support it.
Must you conflate everything? I'm not arguing that candidates are shunned for winning black votes. I'm arguing that candidates who have policies and beliefs that just so happens to appeal to minorities are shunned. That's a reason why Republicans have a hard time garnering the black vote. Christie has been the most shunned high political figure in the GOP. If you don't know that, then you aren't in any standing to provide logic how people vote because you obviously aren't following politics.


Gbaji wrote:

Ok. Then why is it wrong for me to follow that example? You mentioned immigration. I responded on the issue of immigration. But I'm not allowed to do that because you really wanted to talk about education reform. WTF? If it's an example for you to use, then it's an example for me to respond to.

You're being more ******* crazy than normal here.


Gbaji wrote:
Because you said that Bush was shunned for doing something that appealed to black voters. You gave "immigration" and "education" as your only two examples of this. So now I'm not allowed to talk about education either? So... You just wrote random words on the screen then? I'm not following you here.
The point of the discussion has never been to discuss why the GOP and blacks disagree on the "laundry list", but that the disagreement is why blacks vote Democratic as opposed to being deceived.

Gbaji wrote:
Huh? What on earth does that have to do with what I just said?

Dismissing factors in the world around us that influence our decisions because "it only affects you if you make <choice X>" is a cop out. This is true of anyone. I never freaking said it's only true of the less fortunate. When FHA created mortgage backed securities as a way for investment banks to fulfill their CRA obligations, they created a false "free money" situation that strongly influenced investors to invest in these things, leading to the freaking housing collapse. Were these very wealthy investment groups like AIG forced by buy those securities? No. But the market effects of FHA and Fannie/Freddie influenced their decisions in a way that proved harmful to them.

This is not unique to any group. Everyone. Rich. Poor. Educated. Uneducated. Black. White. Whatever. If you change the perceived gain/loss equation to any group of people, you will change their behavior. Not every single individual, because we all have free will. But you will create a statistical outcome difference among the outcomes of any group that you do this to.

I'm honestly not sure why you're arguing that this isn't true. How do you think people make choices if not by looking at the perceived cost versus perceived gain? If we affect the factors of that equation (or even just the perception of those factors), we will affect the statistical choices that are made.
You say this is universal and not unique to the poor, but you're singling out welfare as "perpetuating poverty". That doesn't make any sense. Once you move off of welfare and into the "middle class", you would be given the opportunity to borrow more money than you can handle and become broke again. You're calling a universal concept a "cop out".

#743 Apr 27 2015 at 6:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Except I'm arguing that welfare isn't the "nail". I'm arguing that the "nail" is actually several objects, not a singular object that you could just remove and carry on.


At the risk of arguing analogy with you, I'm saying "we should remove that nail and then we can patch the tire", and you're pointing to everything other than the nail as the cause of the tire being flat, or why we can't patch the tire.

Alma wrote:
I literally followed the same exact logic by providing the laundry list of concerns. You simply dismissed it because it didn't label welfare as a major factor.


Yes. You are following the same flawed logic that I was talking about where if you try to solve "everything" you will usually solve "nothing". But I'm saying that if you just work to fix one problem at a time, you can eventually solve most if not all problems.

Quote:
It doesn't have to be the same because you said "I never even expressed it in terms remotely similar to that.". Saying that welfare perpetuates poverty among the poor is remotely similar to blaming poverty on welfare because without welfare, then according to your argument, poverty wouldn't perpetuate.


Let's put the context back in (again):

gbaji wrote:
Alma wrote:
You were arguing that welfare was the reason for poverty in black neighborhoods.

I did not argue that this was the reason for poverty in black neighborhoods. Ever. I never even expressed it in terms remotely similar to that. Once again, you are zeroing in on skin color. I'm not. I've been talking about poor neighborhoods. My argument has been all along that the crime stats we see are based on the poverty levels in the neighborhoods in question, not the skin color of those living there.


When I said "I never even expressed it in terms remotely similar to that.", I was specifically referring to your insistence that this was "the reason for poverty in black neighborhoods". When you respond by saying "welfare perpetuates poverty among the poor is remotely similar to blaming poverty on welfare", you're missing the key racial element. My whole point was that this affects all people who are poor. Period. Regardless of skin color. It just happens to affect black people more because black people are disproportionately likely to be poor.

I've easily explained this difference to you a dozen times now. I was responding to your insistence that I was making some kind of special racial argument. I was not. I did not express my argument about the effect of welfare in the context of skin color. Welfare has that negative effect on everyone that receives welfare. You need to separate the effect of a cause, and the resulting statistical outcomes of that effect. The cause is welfare. The effect is to perpetuate poverty among the poor. The statistical result is that blacks remain disproportionately poor because they were disproportionately poor before hand.

I only make this point because it's relevant to the disproportionate crime stats in places like Ferguson. The actual effects of welfare are colorblind, however.

Quote:
Now, if you were arguing for welfare reform to create a framework to reduce the likelihood of individuals making poor decisions, then I would agree. However, you're simply saying that the concept itself is bad.


Um... You have to start by saying the current thing is bad before you can reform it. What is wrong with welfare is that it rewards people for lack of productivity. We can certainly argue about how to fix that, but we have to first agree that this is a problem.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
How about you tell me what Bush said, why it's controversial, and how on earth it ties into your assumption that GOP politicians are shunned by the GOP if they do something that appeals to black voters. I'm not going to play 20 questions here. You're the one making the allegation. You need to support it.
Must you conflate everything?


Huh? I'm not conflating anything. I'm just asking that if you're going to use something as an example, you should maybe provide some kind of link to the thing you're talking about instead of making me guess.

Quote:
I'm not arguing that candidates are shunned for winning black votes.


I didn't say you were. I said you were arguing that GOP candidates are shunned for appealing to black voters.

Quote:
I'm arguing that candidates who have policies and beliefs that just so happens to appeal to minorities are shunned.


Yeah. That. Not sure why you keep arguing that you aren't saying something, then immediately saying "what I'm saying is <the exact same thing>". It's really really strange.


Quote:
That's a reason why Republicans have a hard time garnering the black vote. Christie has been the most shunned high political figure in the GOP. If you don't know that, then you aren't in any standing to provide logic how people vote because you obviously aren't following politics.


Again. Give me an example of this happening. I think you are grossly overstating this idea of shunning that is supposedly going on. And you're certainly misjudging how reactions to a candidate's positions may or may not be related to race. I'll point out again that conservatives tend to not look at race when making decisions. Liberals do. So we might question a candidates position on welfare or housing or any other social policies on cost and big government reasons, but a liberal might look at who those programs help and conclude that it's about those groups. But that's the liberals interpretation, not ours. You can't say "he was shunned for taking a position that appeals to blacks", because that's you assuming what our reasoning is.

But if you actually bother to ask us, we'll give a completely different explanation.

Quote:
The point of the discussion has never been to discuss why the GOP and blacks disagree on the "laundry list", but that the disagreement is why blacks vote Democratic as opposed to being deceived.


But if you can't give even a single example to support your positions, maybe you should re-evaluate that position? Just a thought. Every time I ask for an example, you give a vague statement. When I press for details you insist they aren't important. Um... Yeah. They are.


Quote:
You say this is universal and not unique to the poor, but you're singling out welfare as "perpetuating poverty". That doesn't make any sense.


Sigh. The effect of modifying perceived cost/benefit from any given choice is universal. If I put green shirts on sale, people will buy more green shirts than if I didn't. I've modified their choices as a result of changing the relative cost/benefit of the choice itself. If I hand out $5k tax credits if you buy an electric car, I'll increase the number of people who will buy electric cars. If I make it easier to make money by investing in sub prime mortgages, then I'll increase the number of sub prime mortgage in the market. This is not a complicated concept.

Welfare is a single example of this concept. In the case of welfare we are affecting the cost/benefit effect of work (beyond some minimum required to qualify for welfare in the first place). And, just as in all those other cases, when we make one choice more beneficial for the same effort, we will increase the rate at which people will make that choice. So if we make sitting in a dead end minimum wage part time job pay enough to provide for a small family, and simultaneously decrease the net economic gain from working more hours, or moving to a higher paying job, we will increase the number of people who will simply settle in those low paying jobs.

That's what is wrong with welfare. it makes it much harder for those who are poor to get themselves out of poverty because it decreases the reward relative to the effort for working any more than the minimum.

[quote]Once you move off of welfare and into the "middle class", you would be given the opportunity to borrow more money than you can handle and become broke again. You're calling a universal concept a "cop out". [/quote]

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? Once again, you just toss out random ideas as distractions.

Edited, Apr 27th 2015 5:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#744 Apr 27 2015 at 6:56 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

At the risk of arguing analogy with you, I'm saying "we should remove that nail and then we can patch the tire", and you're pointing to everything other than the nail as the cause of the tire being flat, or why we can't patch the tire.
I know. That's literally what I said your argument was. I countered to argue that there is no singular nail to pull. That the nail that you are referring to is actually multiple pieces of smaller objects.

Gbaji wrote:
Yes. You are following the same flawed logic that I was talking about where if you try to solve "everything" you will usually solve "nothing". But if you just work to fix one problem at a time, you can eventually solve most if not all problems.
I'm not in any way shape or fashion arguing that you have to solve everything or nothing. I'm literally proposing the exact argument of solving one problem at a time. You just refuse to accept any problem as a problem unless its welfare.

Gbaji wrote:
When I said "I never even expressed it in terms remotely similar to that.", I was specifically referring to your insistence that this was "the reason for poverty in black neighborhoods". When you respond by saying "welfare perpetuates poverty among the poor is remotely similar to blaming poverty on welfare", you're missing the key racial element. My whole point was that this affects all people who are poor. Period. Regardless of skin color. It just happens to affect black people more because black people are disproportionately likely to be poor.

I've easily explained this difference to you a dozen times now. I was responding to your insistence that I was making some kind of special racial argument. I was not. I did not express my argument about the effect of welfare in the context of skin color. Welfare has that negative effect on everyone that receives welfare. You need to separate the effect of a cause, and the resulting statistical outcomes of that effect. The cause is welfare. The effect is to perpetuate poverty among the poor. The statistical result is that blacks remain disproportionately poor because they were disproportionately poor before hand.

I only make this point because it's relevant to the disproportionate crime stats in places like Ferguson. The actual effects of welfare are colorblind, however.

The simple fact that you have to go in great details in order to differentiate the two means that your statement was "remotely similar", especially given the context of this conversation.


Gbaji wrote:


Um... You have to start by saying the current thing is bad before you can reform it. What is wrong with welfare is that it rewards people for lack of productivity. We can certainly argue about how to fix that, but we have to first agree that this is a problem.
That's absurd. We amend laws (constitution), rules, regulations, etc. all of the time, not because they are inherently bad, but because people will always find ways to exploit them in a way previously not thought of.


Gbaji wrote:
Huh? I'm not conflating anything. I'm just asking that if you're going to use something as an example, you should maybe provide some kind of link to the thin you're talking about instead of making me guess.
Gbaji wrote:
I didn't say you were. i said you were arguing that GOP candidates are shunned for appealing to black voters.


Gbaji wrote:
Again. Give me an example of this happening. I think you are grossly overstating this idea of shunning that is supposedly going on. And you're certainly misjudging how reactions to a candidate's positions may or may not be related to race. I'll point out again that conservatives tend to not look at race when making decisions. Liberals do. So we might question a candidates position on welfare or housing or any other social policies on cost and big government reasons, but a liberal might look at who those programs help and conclude that it's about those groups. But that's the liberals interpretation, not ours. You can't say "he was shunned for taking a position that appeals to blacks", because that's you assuming what our reasoning is.

But if you actually bother to ask us, we'll give a completely different explanation.


Gbaji wrote:
Yeah. That. Not sure why you keep arguing that you aren't saying something, then immediately saying "what I'm saying is <the exact same thing>". It's really really strange.
What part of "I'm arguing that candidates who have policies and beliefs that just so happens to appeal to minorities are shunned." don't you understand? That's not the same as candidates being shunned for appealing to minorities.

Gbaji wrote:
But if you can't give even a single example to support your positions, maybe you should re-evaluate that position? Just a thought. Every time I ask for an example, you give a vague statement. When I press for details you insist they aren't important. Um... Yeah. They are.
That's going down a rabbit hole that is not only irrelevant, but has no end. You're claiming that black people only vote for Democrats because they are pressured and deceived to. I gave you an entire list of policies and reasons why black people support that primarily come from the Democratic party. Whether you agree with those policies are completely irrelevant to your claim. Of course you're not going to agree with them, because if you did, you would be a Democrat.

Gbaji wrote:

Sigh. The effect of modifying perceived cost/benefit from any given choice is universal. If I put green shirts on sale, people will buy more green shirts than if I didn't. I've modified their choices as a result of changing the relative cost/benefit of the choice itself. If I hand out $5k tax credits if you buy an electric car, I'll increase the number of people who will buy electric cars. If I make it easier to make money by investing in sub prime mortgages, then I'll increase the number of sub prime mortgage in the market. This is not a complicated concept.

Welfare is a single example of this concept. In the case of welfare we are affecting the cost/benefit effect of work (beyond some minimum required to qualify for welfare in the first place). And, just as in all those other cases, when we make one choice more beneficial for the same effort, we will increase the rate at which people will make that choice. So if we make sitting in a dead end minimum wage part time job pay enough to provide for a small family, and simultaneously decrease the net economic gain from working more hours, or moving to a higher paying job, we will increase the number of people who will simply settle in those low paying jobs.

That's what is wrong with welfare. it makes it much harder for those who are poor to get themselves out of poverty because it decreases the reward relative to the effort for working any more than the minimum.

Gbaji wrote:

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? Once again, you just toss out random ideas as distractions.
Yet if you were on welfare, you would use the extra money to make yourself more competitive. Funny how everyone else is just to stupid to see the same opportunity. You're singling out welfare as the only scenario where there is temptation to stay mediocre or go backwards, when the intent is to move forward. That's how loans are great examples. It's also tempting to stay home with mom and dad and not pay rent or bills. Except, people actually have dreams of being independent. The bottom line is that you don't care about "upward mobility". Your problem is the fundamental disagreement of the Federal government funding it.
#745 Apr 27 2015 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Remember when I said I'd rather read an Alma argument than see anymore of that GG thread?

I'm really sorry about that everyone.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#746 Apr 27 2015 at 9:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I know. That's literally what I said your argument was. I countered to argue that there is no singular nail to pull. That the nail that you are referring to is actually multiple pieces of smaller objects.


I disagree with that though. I've already written at length about how the things you keep bringing up are themselves either unrelated to the issue of poverty, or are side effects of poverty. To follow the analogy, if we pull out the nail, we also pull out all those other things attached to it and can now patch the tire. But you're arguing that we shouldn't pull the nail out because there's these other things involved. But what you've failed to argue is that pulling the nail out (eliminating or at least sharply reducing welfare) will make those other things worse.

The things you keep bringing up don't in any way constitute valid arguments against what I'm saying about welfare. That's why I keep saying they only serve as a distraction.

Quote:
I'm not in any way shape or fashion arguing that you have to solve everything or nothing. I'm literally proposing the exact argument of solving one problem at a time. You just refuse to accept any problem as a problem unless its welfare.


No. I'm refusing to accept that talking about a problem other than welfare addresses the problem of welfare. You're not arguing for solving any problem. You're just whining about problems. And when I attempt to argue in favor of a possible solution for just one, you switch to talking about another. Again, this is why I keep saying they only serve as a distraction. You happily bring things up that are "bad", but you change the subject as soon as someone responds with a suggested way of dealing with that bad thing. When you do this over and over, it rapidly becomes apparent that you don't want to consider fixes for the problems around you, but just want to wallow in the misery that is a world full of such problems.

You also don't seem to grasp the difference between causes and symptoms. Talking about symptoms can absolutely tell us *why* something is wrong and should be fixed, but it doesn't tell us how to fix that thing. For that, you have to look at *what* is causing that symptom.

Quote:
The simple fact that you have to go in great details in order to differentiate the two means that your statement was "remotely similar", especially given the context of this conversation.


No. I have to go to great detail because you continually forget what was said, so I have to go back and remind you. In this case, the difference was that I was talking about poverty in general, and you turned it into something specific to race. The fact that what you keep saying is "remotely similar" to what I said has the reference to race removed should be your first clue that they aren't actually "remotely similar". If that difference wasn't significant, you wouldn't keep stripping it out when attempting to argue that I was wrong to say they weren't similar.

If you want to argue that "welfare creates and perpetuates poverty among the poor" and "Poverty is because of welfare" are similar, I have no problem with that (other than the latter being vague). But when you argue "you're wrong to say that you never said anything remotely similar to that" while ignoring that I was talking about your claim that I said that "welfare was the reason for black poverty", then I'm going to call you on it. Because those are not remotely the same thing. I did not say that welfare was the reason for black poverty. As I have said repeatedly, blacks were disproportionately poor prior to the implementation of welfare (specifically Johnson's "great society"). Welfare did not create that condition. What it has done is prevent that condition from correcting itself in a post civil rights era.

I get that maybe this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but I'm hoping that maybe a light bulb will go off at some point and you'll get what I'm trying to say. Well, and if not you, then maybe others who are reading this might get it at least. Or maybe I'm just bored enough at work between other stuff that I don't mind engaging in even this semi-meaningless argument.

Quote:
That's absurd. We amend laws (constitution), rules, regulations, etc. all of the time, not because they are inherently bad, but because people will always find ways to exploit them in a way previously not thought of.


I think you're just getting stuck on a very narrow meaning for "bad". If a law can be exploited in ways not previously considered, then the law is "bad", right? You're getting way too caught up in semantics. Doesn't matter what we label it. The fact that welfare creates a condition that discourages economic advancement among the population of currently poor people, is a problem that we should address. Right?


Quote:
What part of "I'm arguing that candidates who have policies and beliefs that just so happens to appeal to minorities are shunned." don't you understand? That's not the same as candidates being shunned for appealing to minorities.


Um... Again, I think you're getting caught up in the language. When I respond to you with a slightly differently worded restatement of what you said, unlike you, I'm not actually trying to commit a straw man fallacy. Pretend that I mean exactly what you meant.

I disagree that GOP candidates are shunned by conservatives for <whatever the heck you said>. Got it? Whether they "happen to appeal to" or are "appealing to", or whatever. Don't care how you word it. I disagree that this happens. I'm waiting for you to show any sort of correlation between the two. Can you give an example that supports your claim (however the heck you want to word it)?


Quote:
That's going down a rabbit hole that is not only irrelevant, but has no end. You're claiming that black people only vote for Democrats because they are pressured and deceived to. I gave you an entire list of policies and reasons why black people support that primarily come from the Democratic party. Whether you agree with those policies are completely irrelevant to your claim. Of course you're not going to agree with them, because if you did, you would be a Democrat.


WTF? You're the one who made the claim. I think it's quite reasonable, if you think that GOP candidates who have policies and beliefs that appeal to minorities are shunned by conservative voters, that you give me an example of this happening. Because I don't see this at all. I'll repeat my assertion that you're just saying this as an excuse to avoid discussing why blacks vote Democrat at such a high percent.

It's just funny how far you'll go to avoid the discussion. And yeah, welfare is a key point here. It's an example of the kinds of social policies which the Dems endorse, and which I'm guessing would be one on your list. Which I suspect is why you don't like the kind of criticism I'm leveling at it. It doesn't fit into your "GOP isn't good for blacks" narrative, so you reject it. But isn't that rejection the very problem I'm talking about with regard to the influence over black votes? Isn't it possible that the reason you have such a visceral negative response to even the suggestion that the GOP platform might be a better one for people to support (yes, even and perhaps especially black people) is because of the very influence and social intimidation I've spoken of? Your responses do seem more like someone trying desperately to avoid even thinking about something, let alone writing about it.

At the end of the day, if you accept that welfare might actually be bad for the poor (and therefore disproportionately harmful to blacks), then this would be a negative with regards to the party that supports it. And if you accept that negative effect, you might have to challenge other assumptions that you have. And that might just lead you to *gasp* question your unflinching assumption that the Democrats are always and forever the best party for people of color to vote for.

Again. Cart before the horse. You reject what I'm saying, not because it's wrong, but because you already assume the opposite is true, and you don't want to entertain even the possibility that your assumption is wrong. This is particularly difficult for African Americans because they, more than any other group in the US, have been taught to actually weave their identity within the context of those assumptions. It's the underlying nature of the "Uncle Tom" label. That by questioning those assumptions, you actually cease to be black. And in your mind, I'm guessing that's a nearly unthinkable thing to contemplate. So you reject it instead.

I get it. I just wish that this wasn't the case. Because what's going on is a freaking tragedy IMO, made more so by those who are most harmed being the strongest voices demanding that we not fix the problem.


Quote:
Yet if you were on welfare, you would use the extra money to make yourself more competitive. Funny how everyone else is just to stupid to see the same opportunity.


Not stupid. Just statistically unlikely to make the correct long term choice when there's an easier and quicker short term payoff at hand. Again, this is not a factor unique to the poor.

Quote:
You're singling out welfare as the only scenario where there is temptation to stay mediocre or go backwards, when the intent is to move forward. That's how loans are great examples. It's also tempting to stay home with mom and dad and not pay rent or bills. Except, people actually have dreams of being independent. The bottom line is that you don't care about "upward mobility". Your problem is the fundamental disagreement of the Federal government funding it.


Yes. My problem is with the government doing this under the guise of "helping the poor". As I pointed out earlier, I totally recognize the same pattern in a number of things in our society. I know a number of people who go through life on maxed out credit cards and continual debt. I know people who lost their homes a few years back because they were living right at (and a little bit beyond) their means. And yeah, I think they are making mistakes living like that. I've argued on this subject many times on this forum. It's not a new thing.

I'm "singling out welfare" in this case because the subject was about disproportional criminality among blacks (specifically how that relates to disproportional negative interactions with police). My argument was (and is) that this disproportional condition is the result of disproportionate poverty among blacks in the US. And I then argued that it was the introduction of welfare right at the tail end of the civil rights movement that has perpetuated that poverty. It is my firm belief that had we not created the "great society" back in the mid 60s, that black poverty would not be significantly different than white poverty today, and black crime therefore not be significantly different either, and we'd not be talking about the disproportionate rates at which black men are killed by police. A whole host of social problems blamed on racism today would not exist.

And yes, when I put on my tin foil hat, I will suggest that there are some who did this intentionally. Maybe some were racists back in the 60s looking for some way to blunt the effects of civil rights on black populations in the US. Others may have just seen it as a way to buy votes from the newly re-enfranchised black voter pool. Maybe along the way, yet others realized that the disproportionate status would allow them to keep "fighting racism" and could use that for political advantage. There's probably a ton of possible reasons why welfare is so staunchly defended. And of course, obviously, there's a large number of people who honestly believe that it's a necessary thing without which the poor of this country could not possibly survive.

But regardless of what people think it is, when we objectively examine the actual effects of welfare over time in this country, it's really hard to argue that it's "helped" the problem of poverty at all. It seems really simple to say "provide needs to poor people who can't afford them", but the reality just doesn't match that simplistic belief. It's wishful thinking at this point, and requires an almost intentional dip of the head into the sand to continue to believe.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#747 Apr 28 2015 at 6:58 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
But you're arguing that we shouldn't pull the nail out because there's these other things involved.
We should pull the nail. Welfare is not the nail or part of the nail. Don't project fictional arguments.

Gbaji wrote:
No. I'm refusing to accept that talking about a problem other than welfare addresses the problem of welfare. You're not arguing for solving any problem. You're just whining about problems. And when I attempt to argue in favor of a possible solution for just one, you switch to talking about another. Again, this is why I keep saying they only serve as a distraction. You happily bring things up that are "bad", but you change the subject as soon as someone responds with a suggested way of dealing with that bad thing. When you do this over and over, it rapidly becomes apparent that you don't want to consider fixes for the problems around you, but just want to wallow in the misery that is a world full of such problems.

You also don't seem to grasp the difference between causes and symptoms. Talking about symptoms can absolutely tell us *why* something is wrong and should be fixed, but it doesn't tell us how to fix that thing. For that, you have to look at *what* is causing that symptom.


Gbaji wrote:
WTF? You're the one who made the claim. I think it's quite reasonable, if you think that GOP candidates who have policies and beliefs that appeal to minorities are shunned by conservative voters, that you give me an example of this happening. Because I don't see this at all. I'll repeat my assertion that you're just saying this as an excuse to avoid discussing why blacks vote Democrat at such a high percent.

It's just funny how far you'll go to avoid the discussion. And yeah, welfare is a key point here. It's an example of the kinds of social policies which the Dems endorse, and which I'm guessing would be one on your list. Which I suspect is why you don't like the kind of criticism I'm leveling at it. It doesn't fit into your "GOP isn't good for blacks" narrative, so you reject it. But isn't that rejection the very problem I'm talking about with regard to the influence over black votes? Isn't it possible that the reason you have such a visceral negative response to even the suggestion that the GOP platform might be a better one for people to support (yes, even and perhaps especially black people) is because of the very influence and social intimidation I've spoken of? Your responses do seem more like someone trying desperately to avoid even thinking about something, let alone writing about it.

At the end of the day, if you accept that welfare might actually be bad for the poor (and therefore disproportionately harmful to blacks), then this would be a negative with regards to the party that supports it. And if you accept that negative effect, you might have to challenge other assumptions that you have. And that might just lead you to *gasp* question your unflinching assumption that the Democrats are always and forever the best party for people of color to vote for.

Again. Cart before the horse. You reject what I'm saying, not because it's wrong, but because you already assume the opposite is true, and you don't want to entertain even the possibility that your assumption is wrong. This is particularly difficult for African Americans because they, more than any other group in the US, have been taught to actually weave their identity within the context of those assumptions. It's the underlying nature of the "Uncle Tom" label. That by questioning those assumptions, you actually cease to be black. And in your mind, I'm guessing that's a nearly unthinkable thing to contemplate. So you reject it instead.

I get it. I just wish that this wasn't the case. Because what's going on is a freaking tragedy IMO, made more so by those who are most harmed being the strongest voices demanding that we not fix the problem.
Malarkey. You asked me to provide reasons why black people vote Democrat. I provided you those reasons. You then cherry picked specific things that you wanted to discuss (i.e. charter school), while denying others (white flight). You asked for a list of reasons, it is unreasonable to ask me to persuade you that each Democratic policy is correct.

Gbaji wrote:
No. I have to go to great detail because you continually forget what was said, so I have to go back and remind you. In this case, the difference was that I was talking about poverty in general, and you turned it into something specific to race. The fact that what you keep saying is "remotely similar" to what I said has the reference to race removed should be your first clue that they aren't actually "remotely similar". If that difference wasn't significant, you wouldn't keep stripping it out when attempting to argue that I was wrong to say they weren't similar.

If you want to argue that "welfare creates and perpetuates poverty among the poor" and "Poverty is because of welfare" are similar, I have no problem with that (other than the latter being vague). But when you argue "you're wrong to say that you never said anything remotely similar to that" while ignoring that I was talking about your claim that I said that "welfare was the reason for black poverty", then I'm going to call you on it. Because those are not remotely the same thing. I did not say that welfare was the reason for black poverty. As I have said repeatedly, blacks were disproportionately poor prior to the implementation of welfare (specifically Johnson's "great society"). Welfare did not create that condition. What it has done is prevent that condition from correcting itself in a post civil rights era.

I get that maybe this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but I'm hoping that maybe a light bulb will go off at some point and you'll get what I'm trying to say. Well, and if not you, then maybe others who are reading this might get it at least. Or maybe I'm just bored enough at work between other stuff that I don't mind engaging in even this semi-meaningless argument.
You say that I'm stuck on semantics, but that's exactly what this is.

Gbaji wrote:

I think you're just getting stuck on a very narrow meaning for "bad". If a law can be exploited in ways not previously considered, then the law is "bad", right? You're getting way too caught up in semantics. Doesn't matter what we label it. The fact that welfare creates a condition that discourages economic advancement among the population of currently poor people, is a problem that we should address. Right?

Gbaji wrote:
Not stupid. Just statistically unlikely to make the correct long term choice when there's an easier and quicker short term payoff at hand. Again, this is not a factor unique to the poor.


Gbaji wrote:
Yes. My problem is with the government doing this under the guise of "helping the poor". As I pointed out earlier, I totally recognize the same pattern in a number of things in our society. I know a number of people who go through life on maxed out credit cards and continual debt. I know people who lost their homes a few years back because they were living right at (and a little bit beyond) their means. And yeah, I think they are making mistakes living like that. I've argued on this subject many times on this forum. It's not a new thing.

I'm "singling out welfare" in this case because the subject was about disproportional criminality among blacks (specifically how that relates to disproportional negative interactions with police). My argument was (and is) that this disproportional condition is the result of disproportionate poverty among blacks in the US. And I then argued that it was the introduction of welfare right at the tail end of the civil rights movement that has perpetuated that poverty. It is my firm belief that had we not created the "great society" back in the mid 60s, that black poverty would not be significantly different than white poverty today, and black crime therefore not be significantly different either, and we'd not be talking about the disproportionate rates at which black men are killed by police. A whole host of social problems blamed on racism today would not exist.

And yes, when I put on my tin foil hat, I will suggest that there are some who did this intentionally. Maybe some were racists back in the 60s looking for some way to blunt the effects of civil rights on black populations in the US. Others may have just seen it as a way to buy votes from the newly re-enfranchised black voter pool. Maybe along the way, yet others realized that the disproportionate status would allow them to keep "fighting racism" and could use that for political advantage. There's probably a ton of possible reasons why welfare is so staunchly defended. And of course, obviously, there's a large number of people who honestly believe that it's a necessary thing without which the poor of this country could not possibly survive.

But regardless of what people think it is, when we objectively examine the actual effects of welfare over time in this country, it's really hard to argue that it's "helped" the problem of poverty at all. It seems really simple to say "provide needs to poor people who can't afford them", but the reality just doesn't match that simplistic belief. It's wishful thinking at this point, and requires an almost intentional dip of the head into the sand to continue to believe.
It doesn't discourages economic advancement. People are either motivated to succeed or not. The ones that are use welfare to succeed. The ones who aren't, stay the same.

Gbaji wrote:


Um... Again, I think you're getting caught up in the language. When I respond to you with a slightly differently worded restatement of what you said, unlike you, I'm not actually trying to commit a straw man fallacy. Pretend that I mean exactly what you meant.

I disagree that GOP candidates are shunned by conservatives for <whatever the heck you said>. Got it? Whether they "happen to appeal to" or are "appealing to", or whatever. Don't care how you word it. I disagree that this happens. I'm waiting for you to show any sort of correlation between the two. Can you give an example that supports your claim (however the heck you want to word it)?
Chris Christie who was publicly shunned, was the Republican with the most black support. Republicans who lean left aren't equally welcomed just like Democrats who lean right.
#748 Apr 28 2015 at 7:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
We should pull the nail. Welfare is not the nail or part of the nail. Don't project fictional arguments.


Um... It's my analogy. I get to say what the freaking nail is. I'm saying "welfare is a problem and we need to fix it". You're responding with "but there are these other problems over here, and there, and in some other places". I used a nail in the tire as an analogy. You don't get to later declare that welfare isn't the nail.

If you disagree that welfare is a problem, then make that argument. My whole point with the analogy is that instead of addressing my argument about welfare you instead try to change the discussion to talking about something else. It's not about what I label a nail. It's about you trying to change the subject.

Alma wrote:
Malarkey. You asked me to provide reasons why black people vote Democrat. I provided you those reasons. You then cherry picked specific things that you wanted to discuss (i.e. charter school), while denying others (white flight). You asked for a list of reasons, it is unreasonable to ask me to persuade you that each Democratic policy is correct.


But it's quite reasonable to ask you to defend your position. If you think that these are things that are so important and that the GOP is just so wrong on them that it can explain a 90% black voter rate for Democrats, it shouldn't be too hard for you to explain why. But all you do is say "white flight", and then when I start talking about white flight, you steadfastly reuse to explain how this is an issue related to the subject at hand. What part of "white flight" do you think is the fault of the GOP or GOP policies? That doesn't even make sense. It's not like the GOP platform has a "pro white flight" plank in it.

Remember. The question was why blacks vote at such a high rate for the Dems. I addressed the issue of charter schools, because that's at least a platform issue that differentiates the two parties and could at least potentially make sense as an explanation. But you didn't want to talk about charter schools. Heck. I had to spend like 3 or 4 posts just to get you to confirm that "privatization of public schools" was referring to charter schools.

Alma wrote:
It doesn't discourages economic advancement. People are either motivated to succeed or not. The ones that are use welfare to succeed. The ones who aren't, stay the same.


Ok. You're still avoiding the main issue here. It's not all or nothing. People have varying degrees of motivation, and those things are nearly always driven by external factors. How much bang for the buck. I might be willing to drive an hour for a really great steak dinner, but not for a mediocre one. You can't hand wave that away by saying I'm either motivated to eat steak, or I'm not. That's just dumb.

Welfare acts to reduce the motivation to succeed by reducing the reward gained for the effort spent. I'm not sure why you continue to deny this.

Alma wrote:
Chris Christie who was publicly shunned, was the Republican with the most black support. Republicans who lean left aren't equally welcomed just like Democrats who lean right.


Well. If the Daily Beast says it, then it must be true!

That's absurd. I seem to recall you argued that Rand Paul was also one of those "shunned", yet he consistently wins the CPAC straw poll. So your litmus test for being shunned seems to have a flaw in it. Haven't seen Jeb Bush shunned either. Cristie wasn't invited to that CPAC entirely because a number of conservatives were still upset about his lavish praise of Obama in the midst of Sandy. It had *nothing* to do with his positions, or the degree to which he may appeal to minority voters. He got put into the penalty box for doing something just a few days before a presidential election which (fair or not) was perceived to have helped the party's opposition win the election.

Had nothing to do with him leaning either direction politically. It was about election politics. At the end of the day CPAC is a politically focused organization/event.

Also, this still is nothing like blacks being labeled Uncle Toms. That's an entirely different thing.

Edited, Apr 28th 2015 6:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#749 Apr 28 2015 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Well. If the Daily Beast says it, then it must be true!

John Avlon has more credibility than any fifteen of your usual NRO/Heritage Foundation/CNSNews/"I know this is a conservative blog, but..." cites combined.

I don't really care about the rest of your guys' little tiff and mainly click this link just to clear the "new posts" arrow but scanning over this line gave me a chuckle.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#750 Apr 29 2015 at 3:55 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
Um... It's my analogy. I get to say what the freaking nail is.
If the analogy isn't right, then changing it is fine.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#751 Apr 29 2015 at 7:00 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
If you disagree that welfare is a problem, then make that argument.
Dafuq you think I've been doing?* I'm not changing your analogy. I'm using your analogy to correctly express my position. For some reason, you insist that my argument is to ignore the primary problem when I keep telling you that I don't believe welfare is the problem.
* Don't forget that I have the ability to quote myself


Gbaji wrote:
. The question was why blacks vote at such a high rate for the Dems.
Exactly. I gave you a list of policies that black people tend to support. Whether or not the GOP is right or wrong is a completely different argument. Just because people think Kim Kardashian is positively influential, doesn't mean that she is. You are literally still asking me to prove most of the GOP policies to be correct, which is unreasonable.

Gbaji wrote:
But all you do is say "white flight", and then when I start talking about white flight, you steadfastly reuse to explain how this is an issue related to the subject at hand. What part of "white flight" do you think is the fault of the GOP or GOP policies? That doesn't even make sense. It's not like the GOP platform has a "pro white flight" plank in it.
The initial conversation was why black Americans overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Your theory was that it was because of welfare. You then went of on a tangent to argue the supposed irony that supporting welfare was a major factor in black poverty. I countered to say it wasn't, asking if you were to remove welfare, would things like white flight and gentrification disappear?


Gbaji wrote:
Ok. You're still avoiding the main issue here. It's not all or nothing. People have varying degrees of motivation, and those things are nearly always driven by external factors. How much bang for the buck. I might be willing to drive an hour for a really great steak dinner, but not for a mediocre one. You can't hand wave that away by saying I'm either motivated to eat steak, or I'm not. That's just dumb.

Welfare acts to reduce the motivation to succeed by reducing the reward gained for the effort spent. I'm not sure why you continue to deny this.
It's not all or nothing. Welfare increases the motivation to succeed because you can now get education and training to better yourself without worrying about rent or food.

Gbaji wrote:
Well. If the Daily Beast says it, then it must be true!

That's absurd. I seem to recall you argued that Rand Paul was also one of those "shunned", yet he consistently wins the CPAC straw poll. So your litmus test for being shunned seems to have a flaw in it. Haven't seen Jeb Bush shunned either. Cristie wasn't invited to that CPAC entirely because a number of conservatives were still upset about his lavish praise of Obama in the midst of Sandy. It had *nothing* to do with his positions, or the degree to which he may appeal to minority voters. He got put into the penalty box for doing something just a few days before a presidential election which (fair or not) was perceived to have helped the party's opposition win the election.

Had nothing to do with him leaning either direction politically. It was about election politics. At the end of the day CPAC is a politically focused organization/event.
I'm not even sure why I'm wasting time with this. It's beyond obvious that you don't follow politics, at least to the level that I do. Chris Christie was one of the first to support the ACA. He implemented a NJ version of the Dream Act and supported Common Core. He also supported treatment over incarceration for nonviolent drug instances.Rand Paul is seen as an "isolationist" for his foreign policy views, drug views and other libertarian views. As for JEB, the entire primary is "Guy not JEB". The donors support JEB, but the voters support everyone else. JEB said himself that he has to be willing to lose the primary in order to win the presidency, referencing the lack of support. To be fair, his name doesn't help, but his view on common core and immigration dug that knife in further.

Gbaji wrote:

Also, this still is nothing like blacks being labeled Uncle Toms. That's an entirely different thing.
I've already made the connection, you chose not to reply. It also became apparent that you don't know what an Uncle Tom is.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 238 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (238)