Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#827 May 06 2015 at 6:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of falling into your cleverly laid trap, you kinda did just quote me clearly indicating that I did, indeed, know this. But once you get past the meaningless "everyone is middle class" rhetoric and start reading stuff by folks who are actually attempting to use the term in a meaningful manner...

You mean "useful to you" since there's multiple definitions, many of which are based on median income and not some nebulous "But... Disney cruises!" definition. There's also plenty of "Middle class by location" charts which are, again, pinned the median income for that location and not how many soccer camps someone in Kansas sends their kid to.

Edited, May 6th 2015 7:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#828 May 06 2015 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of falling into your cleverly laid trap, you kinda did just quote me clearly indicating that I did, indeed, know this. But once you get past the meaningless "everyone is middle class" rhetoric and start reading stuff by folks who are actually attempting to use the term in a meaningful manner...

You mean "useful to you" since there's multiple definitions, many of which are based on median income and not some nebulous "But... Disney cruises!" definition. There's also plenty of "Middle class by location" charts which are, again, pinned the median income for that location and not how many soccer camps someone in Kansas sends their kid to.


Yes, I'm sure there are. Because, as you pointed out earlier, there's political value in telling everyone that they are middle class. But I guess if a lot of people repeat the same false idea, it must be true! Wait. I'm sure there's a fallacy named after that somewhere.

I'm curious what you think of Obama's church's 8th principle in this context. You know: Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

Where they talking about anyone earning within X% of the median income? Or maybe something else? Do you think they meant the same people that Obama is trying to appeal to when he says his policies are good for the middle class? I somehow think not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#829 May 06 2015 at 8:25 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
You seem to be confusing two different aspects of the issue:

1. Whether the act of subsidizing lack of or less work affects people's choices. This is analogous to the market effect of putting something on sale. And yes, of course it will affect people's choices. This effect is either true or not true regardless of what we think of the choice itself. If the government provides a tax credit if you buy an electric car, it will increase the number of people who will choose to buy electric cars. This should not even be an issue in contention. Can we agree that this is true?

2. The effect of the choice difference is negative. This is a separate issue and can be argued. My argument is that while the short term effects of providing "help" to those with low incomes seems good, the effect on their future employment choices far far outweighs this. By flattening the reward curve, welfare reduces the benefit of working more as opposed to simply sitting at some low level of income and relying on assistance programs to make up the difference. And this harms those who do this over time. Worse, it seriously harms their children since it both ensures that they will be raised in an environment with minimal good paying jobs *and* ensures that they feel less stigmatized by the mere fact of receiving public assistance. It's hard to teach children a strong work ethic when you're engaged in the "do the minimum to get benefits" behavior.


The reason why the source of funds matters is because unlike a free market business which has a bottom line, the government doesn't have one. It's spending our money to do this. So if it does the equivalent of putting "less work" on sale (it makes that choice more attractive than it would otherwise be), it doesn't need to receive more work in the future to make up for that. They can just raise more taxes to pay for the difference. Which in turn creates a downward spiral since the taxes themselves must come from the productive side of the economy. So you're basically taxing those who are working productively to subsidize those who are not. Which seems like an absolutely insane and unsustainable economic model to adopt.
That's not a counter to the fact that you're arguing for welfare reform under the guise of removing welfare. Whether or not you're an employer, employee or a consumer, the intent is to always get and or do more with less. People will always find a way to *cheat* the system. What you are arguing has absolutely nothing to do with welfare, but the source of the funds. If you want to argue that, fine. Just leave your tin foil hats out of the conversation.

Gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. As far as I could tell, your reasons were all framed as "they vote Democrat because the Republicans are bad at X, Y, and Z". If you said something different, how about you quote yourself doing this? I don't recall this at all. But hey. It's possible I missed it.
Gbaji wrote:
Your second response in this post didn't contain the reasons though. How about you restate your reasons for us instead of referring back to a claimed earlier statement? The problem with your approach is that you are really really terrible at remembering what you actually wrote earlier. I think I've highlighted this several times in this thread already, where you clearly insisted you said one thing, then I went back and quoted where you said something completely different.

So no. I'm not going to accept you just insisting you already did this. If you want to claim your reasons, then state them here, or directly quote them. Don't just say "I already told you!!!". That gets old really fas
Yes, you missed it, several times. Read more, type less.


Gbaji wrote:
Yes. And I've been arguing that blacks should be voting GOP. Let me bottom line this. As long as blacks continue to vote for the Democrats in such high percentages, their state will never change for the better. If blacks will always vote Dem if they are poor, why on earth would the Dems want to change that? Do you even understand that you just basically proved my argument?

What I'm trying to get you to grasp is that the Democratic party agenda (in this context anyway) for the last 50+ years (actually more like 150 years) has been to keep blacks poor. The only thing that changed with the civil rights act was their method of doing this. Prior to the civil rights act, they kept black people poor via segregation, and prevented them from voting against them via Jim Crow laws (and other forms of voter suppression). After the civil rights act, they have kept black people poor via welfare and prevented them from voting against them by a combination of buying their votes with the welfare benefits and judicious use of the Uncle Tom rhetoric. They managed to convince enough black leaders of the day that socialism was the way forward for black advancement and have kept that ruse going ever since. It's reached the point now where it would take a monumental change to fix this because those leaders would have to admit that they were wrong. And that's not likely to happen.

I'll point out that a lot of black leaders back in the late 19th and early 20th century also thought segregation was a good thing for blacks. It took nearly 100 years for them to realize that mistake. How long will it take to realize this one? There is no easy fix to racially aligned social and economic disparity. But by trying for the quick and easy solutions, they've managed to massively lengthen the time involved. Blacks should not be disparate today. At all. There's no reason for it. Except for public policies, entirely supported by the Democrats, that have made it so.

Why do you vote Dem again?
The answer to why blacks vote Democrat and whether or not those policies are good for black Americans are two completely different topics. When I give you the answer to the former, you respond by talking about the latter. Then you claim that I never provided reasons why blacks vote FOR Democrats as opposed to against the GOP.

Gbaji wrote:
Um... But that's not the same as you saying what Uncle Tom means. Once again, you are claiming to have done something you didn't actually do.
What I said was "If you understood what an Uncle Tom was, then you wouldn't be making your argument. I've explained this to you already, you decided not to respond." That was in reference to how your usage of Uncle Tom contradicts your argument. Read more, type less

Gbaji wrote:

Yes, I did. Multiple times. Uncle Tom is a label applied to a black person who does not comply with the "black political agenda". If he doesn't vote the right way, or hold the right positions, he is labeled an Uncle Tom. Not sure how much more clearly I can say this.

What do you think it means?
Gbaji wrote:
I just did. I could give you the entire history of the term, if you want. But I thought (maybe incorrectly) that we were both talking about the same term. I don't think either of us is confused about what the term means. Where we seem to have a disagreement is how it's used.

Uncle Tom refers to the titular character of the book "Uncle Toms cabin". Interestingly enough, the term is a bit of a mistake because the character of Uncle Tom doesn't actually exhibit the kind of complacency that the term has become known for (well, not exactly). Over time, it's evolved to mean a black person who "went along" with the status quo of an unfair/unequal world around him. In our current vernacular, it means someone who acts in ways that are perceived by black activists to be in violation or opposition to their own agenda. It's purely about making people comply with and maintain solidarity with, a very specific social and political agenda.

It's commonly used to refer to any black person who gains political power who is not a Democrat (or who is specifically a Republican). Clarence Thomas was called an Uncle Tom merely for being black and conservative, for example.

Ok. Now it's your turn. What do you think the term means, and how do you think it's applied today? You know, since we're both clearly writing things rather than claiming we already did. Can you do this? At all?
I see that even with me telling you, you didn't even bother to look it up. "The term "Uncle Tom" is used as a derogatory epithet for an excessively subservient person, particularly when that person perceives their own lower-class status based on race. It is similarly used to negatively describe a person who betrays their own group by participating in its oppression, whether or not they do so willingly."-Wiki This is nothing to do with the "status quo". If you are a person, who supports particular practices that is received as oppressive, then you are an Uncle Tom. It is completely irrelevant to your political party. I gave you examples of Democrats who are labeled the same way.



#830 May 06 2015 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yes, I'm sure there are. Because, as you pointed out earlier, there's political value in telling everyone that they are middle class.

Right. The charts are all tools of the great political conspiracy. Actually, I said that people already think that they are middle class and so politicians use that as handy language to make everyone feel included. For someone who was just trying to assure me that he knew all about this, you sure did manage to fuck it up within two posts Smiley: laugh
Quote:
But I guess if a lot of people repeat the same false idea, it must be true! Wait. I'm sure there's a fallacy named after that somewhere.

Is it called "nonsense"? Because there's no "false idea" here. "Middle class" is a nebulous term. People pinning it to an actual number are at least making it more useful than people who just want to huff and whine about Democrats and howcumzit they say they're for the "middle class" when they're not REALLY doing enough to help people trying to fit in a third Disney cruise.
Quote:
I'm curious what you think of Obama's church's 8th principle in this context. You know: Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

No, I don't know. Never heard of it. Pathological obsession with Obama's churches or religion is really more of a conservative hobby. Am I supposed to be basing the definition of "middle class" off a church newsletter now?


Edited, May 6th 2015 9:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#831 May 06 2015 at 9:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
That's not a counter to the fact that you're arguing for welfare reform under the guise of removing welfare.


I'm not trying to counter that. You've invented this little bit yourself. I have never been anything less than absolutely clear that we should eliminate welfare entirely. We can call that "reform" if it makes you feel better. I don't really care. I think that the very act of putting the government in charge of charity is foolish and leads to massive waste and fraud and ultimately harms those it seeks to benefit in the long run. I'm not trying to hide what I think we need to do here.

Quote:
Whether or not you're an employer, employee or a consumer, the intent is to always get and or do more with less. People will always find a way to *cheat* the system. What you are arguing has absolutely nothing to do with welfare, but the source of the funds. If you want to argue that, fine. Just leave your tin foil hats out of the conversation.


Huh? They're one and the same. I'm talking about government run welfare programs, which, somewhat by definition are funded by government dollars, which ultimately come from taxpayers. I'm not even sure what you think you're trying to argue here. But yes, the fact that people will always try to cheat the system is one of many reason why "the system" shouldn't be created in the first place. Private charities are much better at doing this than government will ever be. And they don't create an entitlement class like government does.

Alma wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
So no. I'm not going to accept you just insisting you already did this. If you want to claim your reasons, then state them here, or directly quote them. Don't just say "I already told you!!!". That gets old really fast.
Yes, you missed it, several times. Read more, type less.


You're kidding, right? Type it again then, or quote it. Either one. Surely you know exactly what you said and where and can easily find it and quote it, right?

Quote:
The answer to why blacks vote Democrat and whether or not those policies are good for black Americans are two completely different topics. When I give you the answer to the former, you respond by talking about the latter. Then you claim that I never provided reasons why blacks vote FOR Democrats as opposed to against the GOP.


And... I'm still waiting for the answer. Notice how you keep avoiding actually doing this. It's kinda funny really.

alma wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Um... But that's not the same as you saying what Uncle Tom means. Once again, you are claiming to have done something you didn't actually do.
What I said was "If you understood what an Uncle Tom was, then you wouldn't be making your argument. I've explained this to you already, you decided not to respond." That was in reference to how your usage of Uncle Tom contradicts your argument. Read more, type less


Yes. I get that that is what you said. "Explaining it" again doesn't really help matters when the question I was asking wasn't whether you thought I used the term incorrectly, but what you thought the term meant instead of what I said. Whatever. At least you finally answered me in the response below, so I'll take that.


Alma wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Now it's your turn. What do you think the term means, and how do you think it's applied today? You know, since we're both clearly writing things rather than claiming we already did. Can you do this? At all?
I see that even with me telling you, you didn't even bother to look it up. "The term "Uncle Tom" is used as a derogatory epithet for an excessively subservient person, particularly when that person perceives their own lower-class status based on race. It is similarly used to negatively describe a person who betrays their own group by participating in its oppression, whether or not they do so willingly."-Wiki This is nothing to do with the "status quo". If you are a person, who supports particular practices that is received as oppressive, then you are an Uncle Tom. It is completely irrelevant to your political party. I gave you examples of Democrats who are labeled the same way.



Nothing in what you wrote (well, what wiki wrote) contradicts what I wrote. The term is most commonly leveled toward blacks. I've actually never heard it applied to anyone who wasn't, except maybe in an allegorical manner, but I've run across people saying it can be used more broadly, so I'll accept that maybe somewhere, someone, actually uses it this way. Also it's also often used in conjunction with a circular assumption that GOP/conservative polices are "bad for blacks", and so if you adopt those, you are an "uncle tom". For example, Clarence Thomas being labeled this way, as well as Colin Powell, and Condi Rice. The only distinguishing feature between them any of a host of other prominent Republicans who where *not* labeled Uncle Toms was their skin color.

Again, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying that it's not used as a label towards blacks who don't toe the correct ideological line? The fact that some may use the term in other situations does not change the fact that it is used as a strong threat towards any black person becoming prominent and conservative. I don't think there's a prominent black conservative who hasn't been publicly referred to with this label, so I'm not sure how you can deny this.

And once again, this highlights the point I was making about how it's all built up in a circular logic fashion. If you assume that GOP policies are bad for blacks, then you'll assume any black person who agrees with them must be an Uncle Tom. But many people assume the GOP polices are bad for blacks purely because a majority of black people oppose the GOP (you've basically made this very argument). But what if they're wrong? The whole thing falls apart. Which is why I keep asking you for specifics. I've outlined a number of very specific reasons why blacks voting in lockstep for Democrats isn't helping them. In response you've given me... Nothing. You keep insisting that the Dems are "good for blacks" and the GOP is "bad for blacks", but you're very vague about why. I asked why charter schools are "bad for blacks", and you didn't have a good answer. I asked why GOP immigration policy is "bad for blacks" and you didn't have any answer at all. I pointed out that the VRA changes only hurt people (if they do at all, which is really questionable) if they are so poor that they can't afford the free voter id (which means it really has nothing to do with poverty), and yet you still insist that this is some kind of horrible sin the GOP has committed against black rights.

I believe that you think this because you've just been told it over and over. But when I challenge you on why these things are true, you can't give a good answer. I'm somewhat reminded of the film Idiocracy, where everyone knows that sports drink is better for you, so they can't comprehend why the plants aren't growing when watered with it. Um... Because the starting assumption was wrong. Just because people keep telling you that these are important "black issues" and you should vote based on them, shouldn't be a sufficient reason for you to just line up and follow along without questioning that. By doing that, you're actually being an Uncle Tom. You're just accepting what you are told and going along with it. You give your power to others based on "facts" that those same people have told you.

Does it ever occur to you that they might not really have your best interests in mind?

Edited, May 6th 2015 8:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#832 May 07 2015 at 5:56 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

I'm not trying to counter that. You've invented this little bit yourself. I have never been anything less than absolutely clear that we should eliminate welfare entirely. We can call that "reform" if it makes you feel better. I don't really care. I think that the very act of putting the government in charge of charity is foolish and leads to massive waste and fraud and ultimately harms those it seeks to benefit in the long run. I'm not trying to hide what I think we need to do here.

Gbaji wrote:

Huh? They're one and the same. I'm talking about government run welfare programs, which, somewhat by definition are funded by government dollars, which ultimately come from taxpayers. I'm not even sure what you think you're trying to argue here. But yes, the fact that people will always try to cheat the system is one of many reason why "the system" shouldn't be created in the first place. Private charities are much better at doing this than government will ever be. And they don't create an entitlement class like government does.
Private charities cheat the system also, so are you against all charity? I'm glad that you're open about your discontent of government social support, but you agreed that welfare can be beneficial if done correctly. So, this isn't an inherently flawed concept, you just don't want welfare for reasons completely outside of the reasons that you're preaching why we should get rid of it.

Gbaji wrote:
You're kidding, right? Type it again then, or quote it. Either one. Surely you know exactly what you said and where and can easily find it and quote it, right?


Gbaji wrote:

And... I'm still waiting for the answer. Notice how you keep avoiding actually doing this. It's kinda funny really.
So you first claim that it's a laundry lists of distractions, completely irrelevant to the problem. Then you started to argue bits and pieces of that laundry list. And now you some how forgot that I even made that list?


Gbaji wrote:
Nothing in what you wrote (well, what wiki wrote) contradicts what I wrote. The term is most commonly leveled toward blacks. I've actually never heard it applied to anyone who wasn't, except maybe in an allegorical manner, but I've run across people saying it can be used more broadly, so I'll accept that maybe somewhere, someone, actually uses it this way. Also it's also often used in conjunction with a circular assumption that GOP/conservative polices are "bad for blacks", and so if you adopt those, you are an "uncle tom". For example, Clarence Thomas being labeled this way, as well as Colin Powell, and Condi Rice. The only distinguishing feature between them any of a host of other prominent Republicans who where *not* labeled Uncle Toms was their skin color.

Again, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying that it's not used as a label towards blacks who don't toe the correct ideological line? The fact that some may use the term in other situations does not change the fact that it is used as a strong threat towards any black person becoming prominent and conservative. I don't think there's a prominent black conservative who hasn't been publicly referred to with this label, so I'm not sure how you can deny this.

And once again, this highlights the point I was making about how it's all built up in a circular logic fashion. If you assume that GOP policies are bad for blacks, then you'll assume any black person who agrees with them must be an Uncle Tom. But many people assume the GOP polices are bad for blacks purely because a majority of black people oppose the GOP (you've basically made this very argument). But what if they're wrong? The whole thing falls apart. Which is why I keep asking you for specifics. I've outlined a number of very specific reasons why blacks voting in lockstep for Democrats isn't helping them. In response you've given me... Nothing. You keep insisting that the Dems are "good for blacks" and the GOP is "bad for blacks", but you're very vague about why. I asked why charter schools are "bad for blacks", and you didn't have a good answer. I asked why GOP immigration policy is "bad for blacks" and you didn't have any answer at all. I pointed out that the VRA changes only hurt people (if they do at all, which is really questionable) if they are so poor that they can't afford the free voter id (which means it really has nothing to do with poverty), and yet you still insist that this is some kind of horrible sin the GOP has committed against black rights.

I believe that you think this because you've just been told it over and over. But when I challenge you on why these things are true, you can't give a good answer. I'm somewhat reminded of the film Idiocracy, where everyone knows that sports drink is better for you, so they can't comprehend why the plants aren't growing when watered with it. Um... Because the starting assumption was wrong. Just because people keep telling you that these are important "black issues" and you should vote based on them, shouldn't be a sufficient reason for you to just line up and follow along without questioning that. By doing that, you're actually being an Uncle Tom. You're just accepting what you are told and going along with it. You give your power to others based on "facts" that those same people have told you.

Does it ever occur to you that they might not really have your best interests in mind?
There is nothing inherently bad about the GOP. As I said, you can be a Black Republican and NOT be an Uncle Tom. You can be a social conservative, for small government,for a strong military, small business type, etc. and not support oppressive policies. Likewise, you can be a Democrat and support oppressive policies, practices and or thoughts and still be labeled an Uncle Tom. Point being, you gave examples of black people thinking specifically about policies that are good for them all while arguing that they aren't thinking about what's good for them, but what they have been told.

I'm not denying any stigma against any black Republican. Part of the reason why that stigma exist is because the black Republicans that are public tend to say stuff like the ACA is the worst thing since slavery.
#833 May 07 2015 at 6:13 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
It's an example case to prove the point that merely taking a percentile range of a population and calling it "middle class" is meaningless.

Nope, the meaning is tied to the word....wait for it....MIDDLE. Maybe you mean 'bourgeoisie'? That's sometimes (incorrectly) conflated with 'middle class' but it has a meaning closer to what you seem to think 'middle class' should. I think that could really work for you guys. "We are the party of bourgeoisie tax cuts!"
____________________________
Disclaimer:

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

#834 May 07 2015 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
But I guess if a lot of people repeat the same false idea, it must be true!
I'm absolutely dying to know what you think of people that repeat false ideas.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#835 May 07 2015 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's an example case to prove the point that merely taking a percentile range of a population and calling it "middle class" is meaningless.

Nope, the meaning is tied to the word....wait for it....MIDDLE. Maybe you mean 'bourgeoisie'? That's sometimes (incorrectly) conflated with 'middle class' but it has a meaning closer to what you seem to think 'middle class' should. I think that could really work for you guys. "We are the party of bourgeoisie tax cuts!"


Eventually you'll get him to admit it's the party for rich old white people.

He will still be puzzled, however, that black people aren't voting GOP.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#836 May 07 2015 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm still amused by the dissonance that the GOP is the party for the Middle Class as defined by financially comfortable people who don't worry about paying for college or their mortgage and who take cruises and worry if their kids don't get enough luxuries...

...and therefore the Democrats aren't the party "for the people" as though the Middle Class (as defined by Gbaji) make up a majority.

Anyway, as pointed out, the supposed "hole" in the Democratic voting base is more of a dip than a drop and Democrats continue to get more total votes than Republicans even if those votes are in the "wrong" places due to gerrymandering, population clusters and the nature of the Electoral College. So, really, none of what Gbaji is trying to assert makes much sense aside from making him feel better by insisting that the GOP is "for the middle class".

Which, funny enough, is exactly why politicians use the term Smiley: laugh "Hey, he said middle class! That means me! He's looking out for me!"

Edited, May 7th 2015 11:28am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#837 May 07 2015 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Private charities cheat the system also, so are you against all charity?


Private charities don't have the power to force me to pay for them to operate. Kind of a massive difference. If a private charity "cheats", and half of the people funding them don't like what they're doing, they lose half of their funding. If the government does this, the half that don't like what it's doing are still forced to fund it.

Quote:
I'm glad that you're open about your discontent of government social support, but you agreed that welfare can be beneficial if done correctly. So, this isn't an inherently flawed concept, you just don't want welfare for reasons completely outside of the reasons that you're preaching why we should get rid of it.


I did not say that welfare can be beneficial "if done correctly". That makes no sense. You're trying to change my argument into one about reform, when I never said that's what I'm proposing. I said that while the existing system of welfare can sometimes be beneficial to some people if they actually do take advantage of the benefits to engage in behaviors that will improve their lives in the future, the number of people who will do that but would not have done so in the absence of welfare is vastly outweighed by the number of people who will use welfare as a way to simply augment their low productivity labor into a subsistence lifestyle. The net effect is negative, so we should stop doing that.

There's no "if done correctly here". Doing it "correctly" would require not doing it at all. Because what you're doing causes more harm than good. I suppose we could speculate about some method to use government to help the truly needy in some way, but it would look nothing like the currently existing welfare programs (I guess that would be "reform", but far moreso than I think you're talking about when you use the term). And, as I've pointed out several times, if we're looking just at that group, private charities are a far far better solution.

Oh. And I'm curious. What alternative reason do you think I have for wanting to eliminate welfare other than the one I've been arguing? I ask because it's really easy to toss that accusation out there, but much harder to back it up with something rational and concrete.

Quote:
So you first claim that it's a laundry lists of distractions, completely irrelevant to the problem. Then you started to argue bits and pieces of that laundry list. And now you some how forgot that I even made that list?


Laundry list was a reference to something else btw. You keep losing track of what was in reference to what. May I suggest (again) that you try to just respond to one thing at a time rather than lumping several paragraphs by me and then giving one broad and vague response? It's often unclear what you're actually responding to when you do this.

In this particular case, I was asking you for reasons black people vote Democrat that isn't framed as "because the GOP is bad at X, Y, or Z". I was making the point that you keep framing things not in a "why we vote *for* the Dems" but "why we vote *against* the GOP". I made the argument earlier that this method is used to get people to pick choice A, not because it's better than choice B, but because they've just been told a bunch of bad stuff about B and choose A as their only other choice.

I'm asking you to actually look at the platforms of both parties and compare/contrast them. Don't just list off things you don't like about the GOP (or have been told you shouldn't like). And I'm asking you to actually write down why the Dems come down as the better choice for you (or even "for black people" although I don't think you fairly can speak for all of them) than the GOP. Can you do that?


Quote:
There is nothing inherently bad about the GOP. As I said, you can be a Black Republican and NOT be an Uncle Tom. You can be a social conservative, for small government,for a strong military, small business type, etc. and not support oppressive policies. Likewise, you can be a Democrat and support oppressive policies, practices and or thoughts and still be labeled an Uncle Tom. Point being, you gave examples of black people thinking specifically about policies that are good for them all while arguing that they aren't thinking about what's good for them, but what they have been told.


First off, let me point out that you've reversed the direction again. I didn't give any examples. You did. And, as I pointed out above, you didn't frame them as "policies that are good for black people" (and thus presumably tied to the Democrats somehow), but as "policies that are bad for black people" (and in your mind tied somehow to Republicans). You told me what black people didn't like (privatization of public schools and gutting of the VRA). You told me about things that disproportionately harm black people (stop and frisk, searches, police stops, arrests, etc). What you have not actually done yet in this thread is tell me a positive thing that Democrats do that you think actually helps black people.

Secondly, when you can't actually explain why those policies are good/bad for black people, then it's pretty reasonable to conclude that you didn't think about it and derive those answers, but are repeating something you were told. Right? If you'd gone through the mental process of deciding that X is good for black people and Y is bad for black people, you should easily be able to write down that process. But you have steadfastly refused to do anything remotely close to this. So yeah, I'm going to go with "just repeating what you've been told".

Quote:
I'm not denying any stigma against any black Republican. Part of the reason why that stigma exist is because the black Republicans that are public tend to say stuff like the ACA is the worst thing since slavery.


Has it occurred to you that maybe they are correct?

Edited, May 7th 2015 7:14pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#838 May 07 2015 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm still amused by the dissonance that the GOP is the party for the Middle Class as defined by financially comfortable people who don't worry about paying for college or their mortgage and who take cruises and worry if their kids don't get enough luxuries...


I'm amused that even though I've clearly explained how I'm using the term multiple times in this thread, you continue to misstate it as your best means of making my claim seem absurd or weak. Meanwhile, you're getting caught up in dollar amounts and ignoring the actual point I was making about how the Democrats are split between the poor on one hand and the very very rich on the other.

I don't really care what we call the people in the middle, or how we count them up, or what dollar amounts we peg to what label. That's utterly irrelevant to my argument that the data supports the idea that the Democratic party policies empower and enrich the very wealthiest among us by buying off the poor with what amount to table scraps for the very very rich. They get power and control. The poor get a set of policies that keep them poor (and voting Democrat because they think they're getting a good deal with the "free" handouts).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#839 May 07 2015 at 8:49 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I'm amused that even though I've clearly explained how I'm using the term multiple times in this thread,

I'm amused that you think anyone gives a fuck how you decide to 'use' words that already have definitions. As it ends out, your explanations generally result in your abject ridicule. Perhaps, just perhaps, you should consider using the common communication framework we refer to as 'language' to communicate your ideas instead of just mashing the keyboard with your forehead or whatever it is that happens now.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

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

#840 May 07 2015 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm amused that even though I've clearly explained how I'm using the term multiple times in this thread, you continue to misstate it as your best means of making my claim seem absurd or weak.

Nothing "misstated" -- I'm using the examples you've given. If you think they're absurd or weak, well...

Quote:
Meanwhile, you're getting caught up in dollar amounts and ignoring the actual point I was making about how the Democrats are split between the poor on one hand and the very very rich on the other.

They're not. Unless your argument is that the majority of the nation is poor (or "very, very rich" I guess) the split is more imaged than real. Hell, even among the "very rich" you're forced to cherry pick and get into asinine arguments like "This Democratic guy has $600 million and this Republican guy only has $400 million so obviously the very rich are all Democrats!"

But, hey, you were all supportive of Romney's remarks that 47% of the nation is a bunch of stupid moochers who refuse to take care of themselves so maybe you do figure that a majority of the nation is a bunch of poor parasites. Man, must be nice being the "Party of the Middle Class" and spitting down on everyone else.

Quote:
That's utterly irrelevant to my argument that the data supports the idea that the Democratic party policies empower and enrich the very wealthiest among us by buying off the poor with what amount to table scraps for the very very rich.

"The data"? Hahahaha... yeah, okay.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#841 May 07 2015 at 9:43 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
"The data"? Hahahaha... yeah, okay.

Obama's been in power for years. There are still poors, right? DATA!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

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

#842 May 07 2015 at 9:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You can tell someone is seriously data driven when they preface their statement with: "I don't really care what we call the people in the middle, or how we count them up, or what dollar amounts we peg to what label."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#843 May 08 2015 at 6:20 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Private charities don't have the power to force me to pay for them to operate. Kind of a massive difference. If a private charity "cheats", and half of the people funding them don't like what they're doing, they lose half of their funding. If the government does this, the half that don't like what it's doing are still forced to fund it.


Gbaji wrote:
I did not say that welfare can be beneficial "if done correctly". That makes no sense. You're trying to change my argument into one about reform, when I never said that's what I'm proposing. I said that while the existing system of welfare can sometimes be beneficial to some people if they actually do take advantage of the benefits to engage in behaviors that will improve their lives in the future, the number of people who will do that but would not have done so in the absence of welfare is vastly outweighed by the number of people who will use welfare as a way to simply augment their low productivity labor into a subsistence lifestyle. The net effect is negative, so we should stop doing that.

There's no "if done correctly here". Doing it "correctly" would require not doing it at all. Because what you're doing causes more harm than good. I suppose we could speculate about some method to use government to help the truly needy in some way, but it would look nothing like the currently existing welfare programs (I guess that would be "reform", but far moreso than I think you're talking about when you use the term). And, as I've pointed out several times, if we're looking just at that group, private charities are a far far better solution.

Oh. And I'm curious. What alternative reason do you think I have for wanting to eliminate welfare other than the one I've been arguing? I ask because it's really easy to toss that accusation out there, but much harder to back it up with something rational and concrete.
Your problem isn't charity, but the source of funds. You admitted that welfare can improve lives. So the problem isn't welfare, it's the net negative (which can be changed via reform). You want it gone because you fundamentally disagree with the concept and instead of just saying that, you're trying to convince us that it should be gone because it's actually bad for the black community and that is your concern.

Gbaji wrote:
Laundry list was a reference to something else btw. You keep losing track of what was in reference to what. May I suggest (again) that you try to just respond to one thing at a time rather than lumping several paragraphs by me and then giving one broad and vague response? It's often unclear what you're actually responding to when you do this.

In this particular case, I was asking you for reasons black people vote Democrat that isn't framed as "because the GOP is bad at X, Y, or Z". I was making the point that you keep framing things not in a "why we vote *for* the Dems" but "why we vote *against* the GOP". I made the argument earlier that this method is used to get people to pick choice A, not because it's better than choice B, but because they've just been told a bunch of bad stuff about B and choose A as their only other choice.

I'm asking you to actually look at the platforms of both parties and compare/contrast them. Don't just list off things you don't like about the GOP (or have been told you shouldn't like). And I'm asking you to actually write down why the Dems come down as the better choice for you (or even "for black people" although I don't think you fairly can speak for all of them) than the GOP. Can you do that?
I know exactly what is was referencing to. I since then, used your terminology to refer the list of reasons why blacks vote Democrat. I expected you to say that, which only proves that you know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't want the answer, you are trying to get me to convince you that Democrats are better than Republicans, which is infeasible and dumb. I gave you the list of policies/concepts that blacks tend to share/like that are supported by the Democratic party. That list has nothing to do with being against the GOP. You just keep saying that in order to pretend that I didn't address your question.

Gbaji wrote:
First off, let me point out that you've reversed the direction again. I didn't give any examples. You did. And, as I pointed out above, you didn't frame them as "policies that are good for black people" (and thus presumably tied to the Democrats somehow), but as "policies that are bad for black people" (and in your mind tied somehow to Republicans). You told me what black people didn't like (privatization of public schools and gutting of the VRA). You told me about things that disproportionately harm black people (stop and frisk, searches, police stops, arrests, etc). What you have not actually done yet in this thread is tell me a positive thing that Democrats do that you think actually helps black people.

Secondly, when you can't actually explain why those policies are good/bad for black people, then it's pretty reasonable to conclude that you didn't think about it and derive those answers, but are repeating something you were told. Right? If you'd gone through the mental process of deciding that X is good for black people and Y is bad for black people, you should easily be able to write down that process. But you have steadfastly refused to do anything remotely close to this. So yeah, I'm going to go with "just repeating what you've been told".
You're the one transitioning the conversation, you didn't respond to Uncle Tom at all. Funny how you remember my refusal to explain how the DEMs are better than the GOP, but you can't remember the actual list. Besides, my exact words were "The Voting Rights Act is a great example". You said "I wold argue that the perception that Democrats support social programs that benefit black people is a huge reason why black people vote so overwhelmingly Democrat. If you think otherwise, then by all means, provide said alternative explanation.". I gave you a list of reasons outside of social programs.

#844 May 08 2015 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I'm amused that even though I've clearly explained how I'm using the term multiple times in this thread


...As it ends out...


Smiley: banghead

Please tell me you were you being ironic?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#845 May 08 2015 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I don't really care what we call the people in the middle,
A week of you complaining seems to contradict this assertion.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#846 May 08 2015 at 8:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This is the point where Gbaji starts saying "You're missing the forest for the trees!" or "You're obsessed with this detail!" and "You have to look at the deltas".

In other words, the point where Gbaji realizes that he's lost the fight but tries to make it everyone else's fault for pointing out that he's wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#847 May 08 2015 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"You're obsessed with this detail!"
That one is my favorite. "If you'd just ignore the parts that disprove what I'm saying you'd see I'm right!"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#849 May 08 2015 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Wait, hold on. Which one is your favourite again?
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#850 May 08 2015 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Third base!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#851 May 08 2015 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I'm amused that even though I've clearly explained how I'm using the term multiple times in this thread


...As it ends out...


Smiley: banghead

Please tell me you were you being ironic?


Read the words around it. Yes, it is humor.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 278 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (278)