All I want is that the money I make at my job, that I work extremely hard for, goes to me instead of somebody else. And I'm self-entitled? I don't think so. People who abuse the system are scum, and we shouldn't cater to them.
You are so ignorant. If you like anarchy so much, move to Colombia.
I think people who are so offended by social assistance should go and live with people who are on it for a month. These are not happy people. The vast majority of them desperately want a job. They are often supporting family with non-existent income. Social assistance, be it welfare or whatever, is not enough to live above the poverty line. If you're actually offended by your money going to people who don't deserve it, complain about Club Fed. Now THAT is an absurd misuse of public funds.
As Teia said, all of this aside, you use social services every day. Are you proud of your country's military? Costs money. Do you drive to work? Costs money. Do you appreciate the signs on the road that stop people from driving into each other? Costs money. Getting the mail, and paying your bills through it? Costs money. Helping recover from national, natural disasters important to you? Costs money.
Do you like that you can live comfortably knowing that at any minute someone isn't going to come into your house and rape you? Yeah, that smugness costs money too.
Travel the world then tell me how much you hate your taxes and infrastructure.
I think people who are so offended by social assistance should go and live with people who are on it for a month. These are not happy people.
You'd be surprised at how much ☺☺☺☺ you can put up with when you're inundated with it day in and day out. Doesn't mean you'll be happy overall, but it's not hard to do the "laugh to keep from crying" thing. Especially when your high school friends have master's degrees and high-paying jobs and you're stuck with minimal income, part-time schooling that's still ongoing, and are really only surviving because of how socialized Canada is (case in point my medical expenses over the last few weeks have cost me like $20, whereas in America the cost would've easily been about two orders of magnitude higher—and that's just medical stuff). What I want is people who insist on all this "I want all the money I earn" nonsense to look me directly in the eyes and tell me how much of a leech I am (or whatever else). I want to see if their convictions are so strong that they can apply them to real people as opposed to dehumanized conceptualizations of other people. It's much harder than you'd think. Most armchair libertarians can't do it.
I very much doubt Darklich has ever faced any kind of real hardship in his life. I'd say he's middle class at worst. Probably white, too. Also heterosexual and the standard list of other things. It really tends to be a package deal for that kind of ignorant self-entitlement.
What I want is people who insist on all this "I want all the money I earn" nonsense to look me directly in the eyes and tell me how much of a leech I am (or whatever else). I want to see if their convictions are so strong that they can apply them to real people as opposed to dehumanized conceptualizations of other people. It's much harder than you'd think. Most armchair libertarians can't do it.
the flipside of that is that if you're on public assistance, maybe you should take that absolute "☺☺☺☺ job" and appreciate the fact that people are working their asses off to subsidize your health care and everything else. People screw around in elementary and high school, mock the people who study hard, then 10 years later, they're on public assistance and *****ing about everybody's relative position in society... as if everybody had been assigned random careers, and people in big houses won them in lotteries.
The upper middle class and above pay plenty in taxes for infrastructure and entitlement programs and I'm ok with it. But realize that everybody who is poorer than lower middle class is probably receiving more in govt support than they are paying in taxes. People on minimum wage pay about 5% of their income in taxes, which is nowhere close to their fair share of public works, defense, etc. It's all fine. But it's amazing what a sense of entitlement people have about their public assistance.
To be on public assistance and getting ALL the entitlements while paying in nothing...
... then lecturing people who are actually chipping in, but have the nerve to complain.
I very much doubt Darklich has ever faced any kind of real hardship in his life. I'd say he's middle class at worst. Probably white, too. Also heterosexual and the standard list of other things. It really tends to be a package deal for that kind of ignorant self-entitlement.
"probably white too"? "ignorant self-entitlement"?
the flipside of that is that if you're on public assistance, maybe you should take that absolute "☺☺☺☺ job" and appreciate the fact that people are working their asses off to subsidize your health care and everything else. People screw around in elementary and high school, mock the people who study hard, then 10 years later, they're on public assistance and *****ing about everybody's relative position in society... as if everybody had been assigned random careers, and people in big houses won them in lotteries.
I worked hard in school. I worked hard in every job I've ever had. And yet somehow I didn't magically win at life. Fancy that.
All you're doing is trying to perpetuate the disgusting stereotype that poor people are necessarily that way through fault of their own. They're poor because they wasted their youth, or because they don't work hard enough, or whatever else. Not because of disability or because of other ill circumstances beyond their control. Terrible stereotypes all around. Just because some are like that does not mean that all are like that. Saying that they are is akin to perpetuating the stereotype that black people are all criminals or whatever.
To be on public assistance and getting ALL the entitlements while paying in nothing...
... then lecturing people who are actually chipping in, but have the nerve to complain.
It's certainly very backhanded to say things like, "We pay your support, and PS we hate you for taking our money."
Tell you what, why don't you take your tax amounts and see just how much they compare to everything you get from roads, utilities, and so on, and realize that all your "receiving more in govt support than they are paying in taxes" stuff applies to that too?
"probably white too"? "ignorant self-entitlement"?
That seems out of line.
Not really. It takes a stunning amount of privilege to be able to deny the privileges you have. Arguments like he made are profoundly ignorant and reek of self-entitlement. Those kinds of arguments come from people who've never had any real difficulty in life, thus the profile. You can see that same level of ignorance from other groups, but it's decidedly uncommon.
Do you use public utilities? Roads? Did you go to a public school? Are any medications you take approved by the FDA? Do you enjoy being protected from crime by the police? None of these things pay for themselves, you know. If you want to play the Internet-libertarian card, then sure, play it, but you should realize just how much benefit other people's taxes give you.
Yes, yes and yes. I do use all of those things and pay taxes to support them. I don't understand your point, really. There's already tax brackets in place that dictates somebody rich will pay more to drive on the same roads as somebody poor. The situation at hand is people using roads that aren't paying for them.
If illegals are paying taxes and supporting themselves in the same way a citizen would, there is no reason they should remain illegal. That's a broken system, and needs to be refined. I actually think getting citizenship should be easier here. It's the people who enter the country with the intention of abusing the system that I have a problem with.
To be totally honest, it comes off like someone complaining about big corporations at a Starbucks. You go on about how "all you want is the money you make" but you make use of contributions from other people.
I have no problem with big corporations, which shows how you little you know of me, and how much you assume. Big corporations provide jobs and can afford to take the risks associated with innovation, which is a good thing.
I think people who are so offended by social assistance should go and live with people who are on it for a month. These are not happy people. The vast majority of them desperately want a job. They are often supporting family with non-existent income. Social assistance, be it welfare or whatever, is not enough to live above the poverty line. If you're actually offended by your money going to people who don't deserve it, complain about Club Fed. Now THAT is an absurd misuse of public funds.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Am I required to care about other people?
What I want is people who insist on all this "I want all the money I earn" nonsense to look me directly in the eyes and tell me how much of a leech I am (or whatever else). I want to see if their convictions are so strong that they can apply them to real people as opposed to dehumanized conceptualizations of other people. It's much harder than you'd think. Most armchair libertarians can't do it.
It's easy to say when you have your own hardships, and when you see people abusing the system, stressing it for everyone else involved. But you know what? If a rich person decides not to donate to charity, that's fine. If people want to help, they can in their own way. But it shouldn't be required.
I very much doubt Darklich has ever faced any kind of real hardship in his life. I'd say he's middle class at worst. Probably white, too. Also heterosexual and the standard list of other things. It really tends to be a package deal for that kind of ignorant self-entitlement.
Not only is half of this paragraph simply false, but I fail to see how my race, sex or orientation is relevant to the topic at hand. Care to enlighten? If not wanting to pay my hard-earned money to support people who abuse the system and aren't interested in helping themselves is entitled, then YES I AM. But lucky for me, it isn't. I shouldn't be required to care about other people. Heartless? Maybe. Your self-entitled claims are totally out of line.
After reading your last couple of posts, I've concluded that you are one of the most ignorant people I've met. Funny how that worked out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
Yes, yes and yes. I do use all of those things and pay taxes to support them. I don't understand your point, really. There's already tax brackets in place that dictates somebody rich will pay more to drive on the same roads as somebody poor. The situation at hand is people using roads that aren't paying for them.
Everyone who pays income taxes, sales taxes, and so on contributes to these things. Unless you're going to say that illegal immigrants never pay any taxes ever on anything, which is implausible at best.
I have no problem with big corporations, which shows how you little you know of me, and how much you assume.
You're right. I was wrong in making an assumption about you. I assumed you could process a simple simile. To be clear, I didn't say that you are that type of anti-corporation person, but that you're like them. You casually complain about things you benefit from and make use of.
I didn't say I knew the full ramifications of the subject, but I did say that it's probably more than you, which may or may not be true, I don't know.
Why would you ever say something like, "I am going to make this claim, but I don't know if it's true"?
I'm sorry, where did I say I hated paying taxes? Taxes are inevitable, and I pay them. The problem I have is with people abusing the system.
Wasn't directed at me, but:
"All I want is that the money I make at my job, that I work extremely hard for, goes to me instead of somebody else."
That's a pretty standard anti-taxation argument.
Not only is half of this paragraph simply false, but I fail to see how my race, sex or orientation is relevant to the topic at hand. Care to enlighten? If not wanting to pay my hard-earned money to support people who abuse the system and aren't interested in helping themselves is entitled, then YES I AM. But lucky for me, it isn't. I shouldn't be required to care about other people. Heartless? Maybe. Your self-entitled claims are totally out of line.
Quite simply, you gain massive social privilege simply from being white, from being male, from being heterosexual (or closeted), from conforming to social norms, and so on and so forth. Also, from having money. You're never marginalized. Never written off using labels. Never systematically discriminated against. Everything is, at its core, centred around the privileged. The privilege are never denied jobs, housing, financial services, and so on simply out of hand. Thus a massive advantage is garnered but never fully appreciated.
If you don't conform to the stated profile, then by all means, state how you're different. Tell me how your identity isn't how I predicted. Tell me of any hardships you're enduring or have endured. I'll listen. I won't try to invalidate anything you say. But if all you're going to do is make privilege-denying claims of "I don't see how identity gives social advantage," I'm going to call it as I see it.
After reading your last couple of posts, I've concluded that you are one of the most ignorant people I've met. Funny how that worked out.
Thankfully, I don't care what you think of me. The fact of the matter is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of social privilege and it's tainting your opinions something fierce.
All I want is that the money I make at my job, that I work extremely hard for, goes to me instead of somebody else. And I'm self-entitled? I don't think so. People who abuse the system are scum, and we shouldn't cater to them.
There's always the question of "how would you solve the problem". Obviously there are people who abuse the system (there will always be no matter the system), but there are also tons of people who need the system to help them get up off the ground and become paying citizens (which is obviously the ideal). It seems impossible to separate the two, and I think it's unfair to ignore those who are trying to spite on ones who aren't.
Basically, I'd rather take the "It's better that ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffer" approach than the other way around when it comes to social justice (which is basically what welfare is), considering the current system in place is the best that the US has got.
How on earth did this get from Minimum Wage to Social Welfare?
Those of you who keep chumping out the poor Police and Fire Departments, please understand that most of us "internet libertarians" understand that these services are provided on a local level and provided by a combination of Property or Sales taxes. It makes perfect sense to tax property and pay police to protect that property. A small group of people make a decision about thier tax money.There is nothing wrong with that.
In the last 2 years there have been 3 votes in my county on scrapping city police forces. With each referendum the populace has been presented with this:
City Police cost "x". County outsourcing costs less. Do you think you are getting better protection from City police and are you willing to pay the difference in Taxes.
2 Cities voted No. 1 City voted Yes. That's how small, local government works.
Large centralized poorly run government says that City 1 has a lot of crime so they should get on the county bus and that City A and B should chip in to help them.
The same can be said about Roads which are paid for by a combination of gas taxes or development taxes (environmental destruction fees) or tolls. Therefor the people using the roads are paying the taxes.
Social welfare has none of these characteristics. It is taking money from one group of people who have worked for it, and using some kind of justification (poor family, race, education et) distributing it to someone else who did not work for it.
(1) Do people who make $14,400 a year pay 12-15% in taxes???
Your standard deduction is around $9500 if I recall, and the lowest tax bracket is 10%. So if you make $14,400 a year, you have $5000 in taxable income, which taxed at 10% is $500 taxes a year. Throw in state taxes and whatever, and I think that's going to be maybe 5% taxes at most.
(2) If you're on minimum wage, get roommates, save money. I did it when I was going to school, and don't see why people think they're too good for roommates.
I remember when I worked at that level I would always multiply my expected pay by 0.85 or so and it worked out. 8.5% in SS/Medicare right off the top plus a paltry income tax which will come back at tax time, but doesn't help pay the monthlies until you get it.
People should get room-mates. I see a lot of couples moving in togeather way before they should just because of the money. (Sometimes they end up having babies and then the dude leaves and mom gets on social assistance. Ye ra. +1 for society.)
You can really get burned with bad room-mates though. before we got married, my wife had a room mate and they had a 2-2 for $800 a month. Roommate left. I had to float her $200 a month until she found a new room mate who ended up being a total financial nut job. Those 3 months of "Kelly" have had lasting concequences.
There's always the question of "how would you solve the problem". Obviously there are people who abuse the system (there will always be no matter the system), but there are also tons of people who need the system to help them get up off the ground and become paying citizens (which is obviously the ideal). It seems impossible to separate the two, and I think it's unfair to ignore those who are trying to spite on ones who aren't.
You solve the problem by putting controls on the money. Handing out checks is the easy way, but you would actually help people if they had education and job skills tied to the money. Churches do this with the assistance they provide. Financial counseling, food, perscriptions, school supplies, housing, electric bills. It is very rare to see a church actually just hand out checks.
I think it might cost more in the long run, but you have to be willing to give up some of your social independance when you accept those government checks.
Is that more "soul crushing" than Min Wage? Sure, but it has to be if you want people to work rather than just collect. To be completely honest, I'd rather see a lot of the social assitance money we spend put into subsidizing childcare rather than paying mom not to work.
I'm a big advocate of family training, but obviously there is a broken system here that needs correcting.
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Everyone who pays income taxes, sales taxes, and so on contributes to these things. Unless you're going to say that illegal immigrants never pay any taxes ever on anything, which is implausible at best.
I'm not sure why you chose to ignore this part of my post, but please see my response below:
If illegals are paying taxes and supporting themselves in the same way a citizen would, there is no reason they should remain illegal. That's a broken system, and needs to be refined. I actually think getting citizenship should be easier here. It's the people who enter the country with the intention of abusing the system that I have a problem with.
You're right. I was wrong in making an assumption about you. I assumed you could process a simple simile. To be clear, I didn't say that you are that type of anti-corporation person, but that you're like them. You casually complain about things you benefit from and make use of.
Wasn't directed at me, but:
"All I want is that the money I make at my job, that I work extremely hard for, goes to me instead of somebody else."
That's a pretty standard anti-taxation argument.
I wasn't aware of that. Sounds like an assumption, but what do I know?
Quite simply, you gain massive social privilege simply from being white, from being male, from being heterosexual (or closeted), from conforming to social norms, and so on and so forth. Also, from having money. You're never marginalized. Never written off using labels. Never systematically discriminated against. Everything is, at its core, centred around the privileged. The privilege are never denied jobs, housing, financial services, and so on simply out of hand. Thus a massive advantage is garnered but never fully appreciated.
If you don't conform to the stated profile, then by all means, state how you're different. Tell me how your identity isn't how I predicted. Tell me of any hardships you're enduring or have endured. I'll listen. I won't try to invalidate anything you say. But if all you're going to do is make privilege-denying claims of "I don't see how identity gives social advantage," I'm going to call it as I see it.
I quoted this block of text because the issue (I thought) at hand is illegal immigration, and once again you've brought in race, sex, orientation and privilege into a discussion where it has no place.
You don't like me, I get it. I understand the ramifications of being born into the dominant race. But, I don't control how the world works. How other people act towards other people isn't my fault, nor my concern. I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just don't care about everyone else.
What I don't understand is why you think that that taints and invalidates my opinion. It doesn't, sorry. When I was younger, I failed out of traditional college. I was emotionally and financially cut off from my friends and family, I worked three minimum wage jobs to make ends meet, while putting myself completely through college, which demanded 50+ hours of work a week to keep up. At any given time all I had was a suitcase and less than $1.00 in savings to my name. No internet, no electricity, and during transitory periods I would sleep at the 24/7 Whataburger. I know some people have it much worse, but I know exactly how soul-crushing a minimum wage job can be. But, even then, my stance on illegal immigration was and is the same. Is my opinion more valid now?
No, of course not. Circumstantial evidence doesn't matter here, which is why I think bringing up my upbringing is inappropriate. It's simply a deflection. Unless of course you're suggesting that I got where I am because I'm socially privileged - which in context to the issue at hand, means that you believe social handouts are acceptable because of discrimination. I 100% disagree with that at a fundamental level.
I understand the practical implications of illegal immigration and how much time and effort it would be to make a change. But that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't voice my opinion in a discussion forum. I've read multiple responses now that basically boil down to "There's no hope, so why don't you just give up?" On principle, I don't agree with that either.
Thankfully, I don't care what you think of me. The fact of the matter is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of social privilege and it's tainting your opinions something fierce.
I don't really care about you either, so it all shakes out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
I remember when I worked at that level I would always multiply my expected pay by 0.85 or so and it worked out. 8.5% in SS/Medicare right off the top plus a paltry income tax which will come back at tax time, but doesn't help pay the monthlies until you get it.
Dammit, you're absolutely right, and I am therefore... absolutely wrong on the minimum wage tax thing. Ugh.
I forgot about the damn social security taxes and Medicare for full time employees. 6.2% social security (reduced to 4.2% for 2011 for 1 year only), and 2.9% Medicare. That's already 9.1% right there.
Sorry.
People should get room-mates. I see a lot of couples moving in togeather way before they should just because of the money. (Sometimes they end up having babies and then the dude leaves and mom gets on social assistance. Ye ra. +1 for society.)
You can really get burned with bad room-mates though. before we got married, my wife had a room mate and they had a 2-2 for $800 a month. Roommate left. I had to float her $200 a month until she found a new room mate who ended up being a total financial nut job. Those 3 months of "Kelly" have had lasting concequences.
I sympathize.
Personally I think they should rent microapartments* in the city (shower and microefficiencies with loft bed and desk, microwave, designed for easy cleaning, and easy in/out) and charge much lower rates. Would also discourage accumulating too much stuff. Could rent them to the poor single people.
Problem is that if you make the rent low, the riffraff would come along and dual use them into microcrackhouses. It would be Cabrini Green all over again: a good idea, with lots of potential, ruined by the fact that there's a lot of ☺☺☺☺ing riff-raff at the low income range, ruining it for all the good, conscientious people at the low income range.
Which seems to happen to a lot of programs for the poor... you really want to help people who are trying to become productive citizens. Yet every time you do, you have 50 opportunistic deadbeat scumbags running to the front of the line for everything, whether it's low income housing, or food stamps. It's all the problems of full-blown socialism, built right into your 'safety-net socialism'. Freeloaders.
* (Could also build higher end microapartments, to people who have a house in the burbs, and want a place in the city to just sleep during the week. I wish they had these... so you could have a place to sleep and shower in DC that's your own, and not have the hellish commute during the week... but then live outside the city. I think the reason they don't try to build something like that is that, again, riffraff would use it as their main housing and turn them into bedbug-roachtraps).
You solve the problem by putting controls on the money. Handing out checks is the easy way, but you would actually help people if they had education and job skills tied to the money. Churches do this with the assistance they provide. Financial counseling, food, perscriptions, school supplies, housing, electric bills. It is very rare to see a church actually just hand out checks.
I think it might cost more in the long run, but you have to be willing to give up some of your social independance when you accept those government checks.
I've proposed something like this in the past as well. If you get entitlements, there should be a program in place to make you do something with that money.
If you are getting a welfare check, you SHOULD be forced to go to the nursing home to volunteer, or deliver meals, etc., or even being forced to get a basic education (which in the long run makes you cheaper for the govt to assist).
Is that more "soul crushing" than Min Wage? Sure, but it has to be if you want people to work rather than just collect. To be completely honest, I'd rather see a lot of the social assitance money we spend put into subsidizing childcare rather than paying mom not to work.
Amen.
Btw, public schools' most important function IS childcare, but that's another topic...
I'm a big advocate of family training, but obviously there is a broken system here that needs correcting.
I quoted this block of text because the issue (I thought) at hand is illegal immigration, and once again you've brought in race, sex, orientation and privilege into a discussion where it has no place.
You don't see very many heterosexual, socio-normative white males working the truly horrible jobs like being the 3 AM janitor at Walmart or something. Reason for this is they don't have to. Meanwhile, a guy from Mexico who'll take literally any job he can get even if it pays below minimum wage under the table? Sure, he'll be more inclined. I shouldn't have to point out the difference here, but apparently I do. The white guy gets such a huge advantage from his race (and from following other social norms—an openly genderqueer guy who wears makeup and skirts isn't going to be welcomed too warmly either). Even a poor white guy has better prospects than the poor Mexican immigrant (let alone the poor Mexican illegal immigrant). Plus his citizenship is never questioned. As far as illegal immigrants go, well, they're at such a disadvantaged position compared to the highly privileged citizens (especially the white citizens) that it basically dominates their lives. If you don't believe me, go talk to one sometime.
The important aspect of privilege that you don't seem to understand is that privilege matters in literally every aspect of social interaction. It matters at school, at work, at play, everywhere. It's usually invisible, especially to those who have it, but it's still always there. Why do you keep on trying to deny it? Certainly during your less pleasant days, you should have noticed others' privileges of money, stable housing, and so on at work. I'm not invalidating your experiences at all—it's terrible that you had to go through that. I'm simply baffled at how you can't connect that experience to others' situations.
Here's the thing, though: How is supporting a citizen who doesn't pay taxes any different from supporting an illegal immigrant who doesn't pay taxes?
Incidentally, you don't see a whole lot of immigrants in fluff courses. You do, however, see them in business courses, engineering courses, medicine, and other courses directly aimed towards getting a useful job. It's mostly the rich people who are guaranteed income either way that major in things like English, Psychology, and so on.
The major issue with psychology is two fold:
1. Lack of training in biology
2. Inability to practice without a Phd.
English is for publications which is a dying industry (right now), and music to a degree has a rather robust industry. The issue is with philosophy seen in the modern sense as something useless, and it has low practicality in it's current format. History has a number of politicians and businessmen that were successful without having to major in business or minoring in that. Political science combined with economics has people go into government and the private sector quite easily.
This is mostly a lack of overlap among subjects that truly exists, rather than the actual subjects themselves. As Orthito said in another thread, for Americans we take random ☺☺☺☺ for two years before getting to the "real major."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
@Teia No matter how many times you bring it up, I am going to call you on it. Do you have any evidence that non-white, non-heterosexual, or non-male people are at a distinct disadvantage because of their differences when it comes to achieving success in life, and it isn't their fault?
Success, being anything from getting rich to just earning a good living.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
@Teia No matter how many times you bring it up, I am going to call you on it. Do you have any evidence that non-white, non-heterosexual, or non-male people are at a distinct disadvantage because of their differences when it comes to achieving success in life, and it isn't their fault?
Success, being anything from getting rich to just earning a good living.
yes, google it. I'm not even kidding, every year newspapers publish surveys on income based on race and gender and every time white males always make more money. This is changing as women and other races are seeing an increases in their salaries, but white males still make more money than everyone else.
yes, google it. I'm not even kidding, every year newspapers publish surveys on income based on race and gender and every time white males always make more money. This is changing as women and other races are seeing an increases in their salaries, but white males still make more money than everyone else.
This has very very little to do with race/gender. It has a LOT to do with education and family status in which these "white males" generally do have an advantage.
Men are also more likely to take risky professions that generally earn more income due to risk factors. Women generally prefer jobs that offer more security but those jobs have less risk.
Women often take career impacting decisions like having children and while it seems that wouldn't or shouldn't matter taking 3-4 years out of your profession in your peak developmental years is damaging to your long term income.
These things compound of course to increase these discrepancies over time, but if you come in thinking you are getting the shaft, you are.
Edit: Let me add that none of this absolves a person from thier personal responsibility. Eventually they have to answer to some one or some thing in thier decsion tree.
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
You don't see very many heterosexual, socio-normative white males working the truly horrible jobs like being the 3 AM janitor at Walmart or something. Reason for this is they don't have to. Meanwhile, a guy from Mexico who'll take literally any job he can get even if it pays below minimum wage under the table? Sure, he'll be more inclined. I shouldn't have to point out the difference here, but apparently I do. The white guy gets such a huge advantage from his race (and from following other social norms—an openly genderqueer guy who wears makeup and skirts isn't going to be welcomed too warmly either). Even a poor white guy has better prospects than the poor Mexican immigrant (let alone the poor Mexican illegal immigrant). Plus his citizenship is never questioned. As far as illegal immigrants go, well, they're at such a disadvantaged position compared to the highly privileged citizens (especially the white citizens) that it basically dominates their lives. If you don't believe me, go talk to one sometime.
There's a fine line between recognizing the way the world works and being racist yourself. I don't really want to get into that with you right now, because that's a whole other issue. (See below for the brunt of my reply)
The important aspect of privilege that you don't seem to understand is that privilege matters in literally every aspect of social interaction. It matters at school, at work, at play, everywhere. It's usually invisible, especially to those who have it, but it's still always there. Why do you keep on trying to deny it? Certainly during your less pleasant days, you should have noticed others' privileges of money, stable housing, and so on at work. I'm not invalidating your experiences at all—it's terrible that you had to go through that. I'm simply baffled at how you can't connect that experience to others' situations.
I made no such claims of denial. Sure, I'm socially privileged by default. But what I actually said is that it doesn't matter to the issue at hand.
Social handouts are never acceptable regardless of how and why somebody got rich. Race doesn't factor in at all. If a white privileged male is born into money, or a gay Jewish black dude wins the lottery after a life of hardship, neither should be required to support other people in the form of social handouts with that money. They can choose to of course, of their own free will. I support and encourage this.
You seem to believe that social handouts are justified. Privileged individuals are successful mostly because of their social privilege, so we need to even the playing field. It's the same sort of logic as Affirmative Action. (which I also disagree with on a fundamental level) Somebody higher up sees how the world works, as it were, and tries to compensate.
I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree. I believe that social privilege comes to those who have dominance, wealth, power, status and education. (It is relative after all) Racial or other factors should be left out of the equation - so you remove stereotyping, generalizing or other numerous exceptions - and just look at it from a generic perspective.
Anyway, I think I've said here all that I've wanted to say, so unless something new comes up I'll just leave it at that.
Here's the thing, though: How is supporting a citizen who doesn't pay taxes any different from supporting an illegal immigrant who doesn't pay taxes?
Fundamentally, one is doing something illegal and one isn't. Practically, they are equal. But please note that I don't support Welfare or other similar handout systems either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all.
If you don't have respect for the deadliest and most difficult to join fighting force IN THE WORLD, then I do not hesitate to say that I would feel more offended if you DID respect me.
I don't care how old this is, but you are no older than 15, and you don't know ☺☺☺☺ about ☺☺☺☺ and need to shut up about things you don't know anything about.
yes, google it. I'm not even kidding, every year newspapers publish surveys on income based on race and gender and every time white males always make more money. This is changing as women and other races are seeing an increases in their salaries, but white males still make more money than everyone else.
What does that have to do with whether a person should make bigoted comments like this one?
Yes, the mean salary and median salary for white men is higher than any other group. That doesn't apply to any random individual.
And I'm sure there are millions of white males below the poverty line, and millions at middle class, etc. Most white males have struggled, just as most people from any demographic probably has struggled.
Does anybody think that those millions of white males who are poor, simply take satisfaction from the fact that they're in the 'same club' as the rich white males? That just because their distant cousins, the white males on wall-street, never struggled, and therefore feel a sense of ignorant self-entitlement?
Quote from Teia_Rabishu »
I very much doubt Darklich has ever faced any kind of real hardship in his life. I'd say he's middle class at worst. Probably white, too. Also heterosexual and the standard list of other things. It really tends to be a package deal for that kind of ignorant self-entitlement...
You don't see very many heterosexual, socio-normative white males working the truly horrible jobs like being the 3 AM janitor at Walmart or something.
yes, google it. I'm not even kidding, every year newspapers publish surveys on income based on race and gender and every time white males always make more money. This is changing as women and other races are seeing an increases in their salaries, but white males still make more money than everyone else.
I think dcartist, and cardfather hit the nail on the head, but I will still respond with a point of my own as well.
Yes, statistically speaking white people may make more money than other races, but that in no way shows the other races or at a disadvantage, or that white people or at an advantage, because of their color. Success =/= opportunity. You are not guaranteed success in the country, you are guaranteed an opportunity, which everyone has. Those newspaper surveys tally people's success, and the fact that the non-white races made less money doesn't necessarily mean the system is stacked against them because of their color, in fact it doesn't mean that at all. Your going to need some more coherent evidence to sway me, because I am not arguing that a certain group of people doesn't have more success than another (because certain groups do), I am arguing that both groups have the same opportunity and neither has a disadvantage based on race, gender, or sexuality.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
I believe that social privilege comes to those who have dominance, wealth, power, status and education. (It is relative after all) Racial or other factors should be left out of the equation - so you remove stereotyping, generalizing or other numerous exceptions - and just look at it from a generic perspective.
I'm curious how you separate race and so on from social privilege when for decades upon decades, the only people with any power at all were rich white people. We aren't so far from that legacy that we can claim to be past it. Especially not when the figures for income and education and so on still skew towards whiteness. I appreciate that facing racial classism is an uncomfortable thing, but the fact is classism is alive and kicking.
But please note that I don't support Welfare or other similar handout systems either.
The fact that you didn't take any handouts when you probably could have is, I guess, commendable, but arguing in favour of denying that chance to others is selfish to extremes. If you don't like handouts, don't take them. Simple as that.
Yes, statistically speaking white people may make more money than other races, but that in no way shows the other races or at a disadvantage, or that white people or at an advantage
Given that your standard of proof is set such that nothing could ever possibly meet it, I don't see the point in continuing this argument against you. I mean, it should just be common sense that people with established money have more and better opportunities than people who don't, but you refuse to accept even something that simple.
So as far as this subject goes, I'm not going to waste my proverbial breath.
I mean, it should just be common sense that people with established money have more and better opportunities than people who don't, but you refuse to accept even something that simple.
But, I do accept that? I never said I don't, so please read my posts. If someone who happens to be less fortunate, financially wise, is also black, gay, or female has a rough time becoming successful, it is because of their financial situation, not because of their color, gender, or sexuality. Don't you understand that? You keep saying people or at a disadvantage because they are black, or gay, or a chick, and then when i ask for some evidence you can never provide it.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Because typing "a woman" would be too much like pretending women are equal to men, right?
But sure, let's go about pretending that a heterosexual white cis man and a lesbian black trans woman (both middle class, for the sake of argument) will be given exactly the same opportunities.
But, I do accept that? I never said I don't, so please read my posts. If someone who happens to be less fortunate, financially wise, is also black, gay, or female has a rough time becoming successful, it is because of their financial situation, not because of their color, gender, or sexuality. Don't you understand that? You keep saying people or at a disadvantage because they are black, or gay, or a chick, and then when i ask for some evidence you can never provide it.
But wasn't is just said above that financial situation is tied into race? I don't believe the two are completely separate.
But sure, let's go about pretending that a heterosexual white cis man and a lesbian black trans woman (both middle class, for the sake of argument) will be given exactly the same opportunities.
But wasn't is just said above that financial situation is tied into race? I don't believe the two are completely separate.
You are absolutely correct, but them having a rough life because of their finances is not the same as the system actually discriminating because of their race, which is what Teia claims happens all the time and is "common sense", yet she can't give me any evidence.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
You are absolutely correct, but them having a rough life because of their finances is not the same as the system actually discriminating because of their race, which is what Teia claims happens all the time and is "common sense", yet she can't give me any evidence.
Well, when I did, you immediately rejected it out of hand with some contortionism about how everyone has the same "opportunities," ignoring for a moment that more and better opportunities lead to success. Also ignoring the common sense that the black lesbian trans woman I mentioned would hardly be given the same opportunities (job offers, social connections, etc) by others compared to the cisnormative white guy, specifically because she's so many things that are discriminated against.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You are so ignorant. If you like anarchy so much, move to Colombia.
I think people who are so offended by social assistance should go and live with people who are on it for a month. These are not happy people. The vast majority of them desperately want a job. They are often supporting family with non-existent income. Social assistance, be it welfare or whatever, is not enough to live above the poverty line. If you're actually offended by your money going to people who don't deserve it, complain about Club Fed. Now THAT is an absurd misuse of public funds.
As Teia said, all of this aside, you use social services every day. Are you proud of your country's military? Costs money. Do you drive to work? Costs money. Do you appreciate the signs on the road that stop people from driving into each other? Costs money. Getting the mail, and paying your bills through it? Costs money. Helping recover from national, natural disasters important to you? Costs money.
Do you like that you can live comfortably knowing that at any minute someone isn't going to come into your house and rape you? Yeah, that smugness costs money too.
Travel the world then tell me how much you hate your taxes and infrastructure.
You'd be surprised at how much ☺☺☺☺ you can put up with when you're inundated with it day in and day out. Doesn't mean you'll be happy overall, but it's not hard to do the "laugh to keep from crying" thing. Especially when your high school friends have master's degrees and high-paying jobs and you're stuck with minimal income, part-time schooling that's still ongoing, and are really only surviving because of how socialized Canada is (case in point my medical expenses over the last few weeks have cost me like $20, whereas in America the cost would've easily been about two orders of magnitude higher—and that's just medical stuff). What I want is people who insist on all this "I want all the money I earn" nonsense to look me directly in the eyes and tell me how much of a leech I am (or whatever else). I want to see if their convictions are so strong that they can apply them to real people as opposed to dehumanized conceptualizations of other people. It's much harder than you'd think. Most armchair libertarians can't do it.
I very much doubt Darklich has ever faced any kind of real hardship in his life. I'd say he's middle class at worst. Probably white, too. Also heterosexual and the standard list of other things. It really tends to be a package deal for that kind of ignorant self-entitlement.
The upper middle class and above pay plenty in taxes for infrastructure and entitlement programs and I'm ok with it. But realize that everybody who is poorer than lower middle class is probably receiving more in govt support than they are paying in taxes. People on minimum wage pay about 5% of their income in taxes, which is nowhere close to their fair share of public works, defense, etc. It's all fine. But it's amazing what a sense of entitlement people have about their public assistance.
To be on public assistance and getting ALL the entitlements while paying in nothing...
... then lecturing people who are actually chipping in, but have the nerve to complain.
"probably white too"? "ignorant self-entitlement"?
That seems out of line.
I worked hard in school. I worked hard in every job I've ever had. And yet somehow I didn't magically win at life. Fancy that.
All you're doing is trying to perpetuate the disgusting stereotype that poor people are necessarily that way through fault of their own. They're poor because they wasted their youth, or because they don't work hard enough, or whatever else. Not because of disability or because of other ill circumstances beyond their control. Terrible stereotypes all around. Just because some are like that does not mean that all are like that. Saying that they are is akin to perpetuating the stereotype that black people are all criminals or whatever.
It's certainly very backhanded to say things like, "We pay your support, and PS we hate you for taking our money."
Tell you what, why don't you take your tax amounts and see just how much they compare to everything you get from roads, utilities, and so on, and realize that all your "receiving more in govt support than they are paying in taxes" stuff applies to that too?
Not really. It takes a stunning amount of privilege to be able to deny the privileges you have. Arguments like he made are profoundly ignorant and reek of self-entitlement. Those kinds of arguments come from people who've never had any real difficulty in life, thus the profile. You can see that same level of ignorance from other groups, but it's decidedly uncommon.
Yes, yes and yes. I do use all of those things and pay taxes to support them. I don't understand your point, really. There's already tax brackets in place that dictates somebody rich will pay more to drive on the same roads as somebody poor. The situation at hand is people using roads that aren't paying for them.
If illegals are paying taxes and supporting themselves in the same way a citizen would, there is no reason they should remain illegal. That's a broken system, and needs to be refined. I actually think getting citizenship should be easier here. It's the people who enter the country with the intention of abusing the system that I have a problem with.
I have no problem with big corporations, which shows how you little you know of me, and how much you assume. Big corporations provide jobs and can afford to take the risks associated with innovation, which is a good thing.
I didn't say I knew the full ramifications of the subject, but I did say that it's probably more than you, which may or may not be true, I don't know.
Ignorant? Maybe. I don't claim to know everything. Anarchy? I have no idea where you got that idea.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Am I required to care about other people?
I'm sorry, where did I say I hated paying taxes? Taxes are inevitable, and I pay them. The problem I have is with people abusing the system.
It's easy to say when you have your own hardships, and when you see people abusing the system, stressing it for everyone else involved. But you know what? If a rich person decides not to donate to charity, that's fine. If people want to help, they can in their own way. But it shouldn't be required.
Not only is half of this paragraph simply false, but I fail to see how my race, sex or orientation is relevant to the topic at hand. Care to enlighten? If not wanting to pay my hard-earned money to support people who abuse the system and aren't interested in helping themselves is entitled, then YES I AM. But lucky for me, it isn't. I shouldn't be required to care about other people. Heartless? Maybe. Your self-entitled claims are totally out of line.
After reading your last couple of posts, I've concluded that you are one of the most ignorant people I've met. Funny how that worked out.
Everyone who pays income taxes, sales taxes, and so on contributes to these things. Unless you're going to say that illegal immigrants never pay any taxes ever on anything, which is implausible at best.
You're right. I was wrong in making an assumption about you. I assumed you could process a simple simile. To be clear, I didn't say that you are that type of anti-corporation person, but that you're like them. You casually complain about things you benefit from and make use of.
Why would you ever say something like, "I am going to make this claim, but I don't know if it's true"?
Wasn't directed at me, but:
"All I want is that the money I make at my job, that I work extremely hard for, goes to me instead of somebody else."
That's a pretty standard anti-taxation argument.
Quite simply, you gain massive social privilege simply from being white, from being male, from being heterosexual (or closeted), from conforming to social norms, and so on and so forth. Also, from having money. You're never marginalized. Never written off using labels. Never systematically discriminated against. Everything is, at its core, centred around the privileged. The privilege are never denied jobs, housing, financial services, and so on simply out of hand. Thus a massive advantage is garnered but never fully appreciated.
If you don't conform to the stated profile, then by all means, state how you're different. Tell me how your identity isn't how I predicted. Tell me of any hardships you're enduring or have endured. I'll listen. I won't try to invalidate anything you say. But if all you're going to do is make privilege-denying claims of "I don't see how identity gives social advantage," I'm going to call it as I see it.
Thankfully, I don't care what you think of me. The fact of the matter is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of social privilege and it's tainting your opinions something fierce.
There's always the question of "how would you solve the problem". Obviously there are people who abuse the system (there will always be no matter the system), but there are also tons of people who need the system to help them get up off the ground and become paying citizens (which is obviously the ideal). It seems impossible to separate the two, and I think it's unfair to ignore those who are trying to spite on ones who aren't.
Basically, I'd rather take the "It's better that ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffer" approach than the other way around when it comes to social justice (which is basically what welfare is), considering the current system in place is the best that the US has got.
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
Those of you who keep chumping out the poor Police and Fire Departments, please understand that most of us "internet libertarians" understand that these services are provided on a local level and provided by a combination of Property or Sales taxes. It makes perfect sense to tax property and pay police to protect that property. A small group of people make a decision about thier tax money.There is nothing wrong with that.
In the last 2 years there have been 3 votes in my county on scrapping city police forces. With each referendum the populace has been presented with this:
City Police cost "x". County outsourcing costs less. Do you think you are getting better protection from City police and are you willing to pay the difference in Taxes.
2 Cities voted No. 1 City voted Yes. That's how small, local government works.
Large centralized poorly run government says that City 1 has a lot of crime so they should get on the county bus and that City A and B should chip in to help them.
The same can be said about Roads which are paid for by a combination of gas taxes or development taxes (environmental destruction fees) or tolls. Therefor the people using the roads are paying the taxes.
Social welfare has none of these characteristics. It is taking money from one group of people who have worked for it, and using some kind of justification (poor family, race, education et) distributing it to someone else who did not work for it.
Please stop comparing the two.
I remember when I worked at that level I would always multiply my expected pay by 0.85 or so and it worked out. 8.5% in SS/Medicare right off the top plus a paltry income tax which will come back at tax time, but doesn't help pay the monthlies until you get it.
People should get room-mates. I see a lot of couples moving in togeather way before they should just because of the money. (Sometimes they end up having babies and then the dude leaves and mom gets on social assistance. Ye ra. +1 for society.)
You can really get burned with bad room-mates though. before we got married, my wife had a room mate and they had a 2-2 for $800 a month. Roommate left. I had to float her $200 a month until she found a new room mate who ended up being a total financial nut job. Those 3 months of "Kelly" have had lasting concequences.
You solve the problem by putting controls on the money. Handing out checks is the easy way, but you would actually help people if they had education and job skills tied to the money. Churches do this with the assistance they provide. Financial counseling, food, perscriptions, school supplies, housing, electric bills. It is very rare to see a church actually just hand out checks.
I think it might cost more in the long run, but you have to be willing to give up some of your social independance when you accept those government checks.
Is that more "soul crushing" than Min Wage? Sure, but it has to be if you want people to work rather than just collect. To be completely honest, I'd rather see a lot of the social assitance money we spend put into subsidizing childcare rather than paying mom not to work.
I'm a big advocate of family training, but obviously there is a broken system here that needs correcting.
I'm not sure why you chose to ignore this part of my post, but please see my response below:
So we've devolved into personal attacks now?
I wasn't aware of that. Sounds like an assumption, but what do I know?
I quoted this block of text because the issue (I thought) at hand is illegal immigration, and once again you've brought in race, sex, orientation and privilege into a discussion where it has no place.
You don't like me, I get it. I understand the ramifications of being born into the dominant race. But, I don't control how the world works. How other people act towards other people isn't my fault, nor my concern. I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just don't care about everyone else.
What I don't understand is why you think that that taints and invalidates my opinion. It doesn't, sorry. When I was younger, I failed out of traditional college. I was emotionally and financially cut off from my friends and family, I worked three minimum wage jobs to make ends meet, while putting myself completely through college, which demanded 50+ hours of work a week to keep up. At any given time all I had was a suitcase and less than $1.00 in savings to my name. No internet, no electricity, and during transitory periods I would sleep at the 24/7 Whataburger. I know some people have it much worse, but I know exactly how soul-crushing a minimum wage job can be. But, even then, my stance on illegal immigration was and is the same. Is my opinion more valid now?
No, of course not. Circumstantial evidence doesn't matter here, which is why I think bringing up my upbringing is inappropriate. It's simply a deflection. Unless of course you're suggesting that I got where I am because I'm socially privileged - which in context to the issue at hand, means that you believe social handouts are acceptable because of discrimination. I 100% disagree with that at a fundamental level.
I understand the practical implications of illegal immigration and how much time and effort it would be to make a change. But that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't voice my opinion in a discussion forum. I've read multiple responses now that basically boil down to "There's no hope, so why don't you just give up?" On principle, I don't agree with that either.
I don't really care about you either, so it all shakes out.
I forgot about the damn social security taxes and Medicare for full time employees. 6.2% social security (reduced to 4.2% for 2011 for 1 year only), and 2.9% Medicare. That's already 9.1% right there.
Sorry.
I sympathize.
Personally I think they should rent microapartments* in the city (shower and microefficiencies with loft bed and desk, microwave, designed for easy cleaning, and easy in/out) and charge much lower rates. Would also discourage accumulating too much stuff. Could rent them to the poor single people.
Problem is that if you make the rent low, the riffraff would come along and dual use them into microcrackhouses. It would be Cabrini Green all over again: a good idea, with lots of potential, ruined by the fact that there's a lot of ☺☺☺☺ing riff-raff at the low income range, ruining it for all the good, conscientious people at the low income range.
Which seems to happen to a lot of programs for the poor... you really want to help people who are trying to become productive citizens. Yet every time you do, you have 50 opportunistic deadbeat scumbags running to the front of the line for everything, whether it's low income housing, or food stamps. It's all the problems of full-blown socialism, built right into your 'safety-net socialism'. Freeloaders.
* (Could also build higher end microapartments, to people who have a house in the burbs, and want a place in the city to just sleep during the week. I wish they had these... so you could have a place to sleep and shower in DC that's your own, and not have the hellish commute during the week... but then live outside the city. I think the reason they don't try to build something like that is that, again, riffraff would use it as their main housing and turn them into bedbug-roachtraps).
I've proposed something like this in the past as well. If you get entitlements, there should be a program in place to make you do something with that money.
If you are getting a welfare check, you SHOULD be forced to go to the nursing home to volunteer, or deliver meals, etc., or even being forced to get a basic education (which in the long run makes you cheaper for the govt to assist).
Amen.
Btw, public schools' most important function IS childcare, but that's another topic...
Hear, hear.
You don't see very many heterosexual, socio-normative white males working the truly horrible jobs like being the 3 AM janitor at Walmart or something. Reason for this is they don't have to. Meanwhile, a guy from Mexico who'll take literally any job he can get even if it pays below minimum wage under the table? Sure, he'll be more inclined. I shouldn't have to point out the difference here, but apparently I do. The white guy gets such a huge advantage from his race (and from following other social norms—an openly genderqueer guy who wears makeup and skirts isn't going to be welcomed too warmly either). Even a poor white guy has better prospects than the poor Mexican immigrant (let alone the poor Mexican illegal immigrant). Plus his citizenship is never questioned. As far as illegal immigrants go, well, they're at such a disadvantaged position compared to the highly privileged citizens (especially the white citizens) that it basically dominates their lives. If you don't believe me, go talk to one sometime.
The important aspect of privilege that you don't seem to understand is that privilege matters in literally every aspect of social interaction. It matters at school, at work, at play, everywhere. It's usually invisible, especially to those who have it, but it's still always there. Why do you keep on trying to deny it? Certainly during your less pleasant days, you should have noticed others' privileges of money, stable housing, and so on at work. I'm not invalidating your experiences at all—it's terrible that you had to go through that. I'm simply baffled at how you can't connect that experience to others' situations.
Here's the thing, though: How is supporting a citizen who doesn't pay taxes any different from supporting an illegal immigrant who doesn't pay taxes?
The major issue with psychology is two fold:
1. Lack of training in biology
2. Inability to practice without a Phd.
English is for publications which is a dying industry (right now), and music to a degree has a rather robust industry. The issue is with philosophy seen in the modern sense as something useless, and it has low practicality in it's current format. History has a number of politicians and businessmen that were successful without having to major in business or minoring in that. Political science combined with economics has people go into government and the private sector quite easily.
This is mostly a lack of overlap among subjects that truly exists, rather than the actual subjects themselves. As Orthito said in another thread, for Americans we take random ☺☺☺☺ for two years before getting to the "real major."
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Success, being anything from getting rich to just earning a good living.
yes, google it. I'm not even kidding, every year newspapers publish surveys on income based on race and gender and every time white males always make more money. This is changing as women and other races are seeing an increases in their salaries, but white males still make more money than everyone else.
This has very very little to do with race/gender. It has a LOT to do with education and family status in which these "white males" generally do have an advantage.
Men are also more likely to take risky professions that generally earn more income due to risk factors. Women generally prefer jobs that offer more security but those jobs have less risk.
Women often take career impacting decisions like having children and while it seems that wouldn't or shouldn't matter taking 3-4 years out of your profession in your peak developmental years is damaging to your long term income.
These things compound of course to increase these discrepancies over time, but if you come in thinking you are getting the shaft, you are.
Edit: Let me add that none of this absolves a person from thier personal responsibility. Eventually they have to answer to some one or some thing in thier decsion tree.
There's a fine line between recognizing the way the world works and being racist yourself. I don't really want to get into that with you right now, because that's a whole other issue. (See below for the brunt of my reply)
I made no such claims of denial. Sure, I'm socially privileged by default. But what I actually said is that it doesn't matter to the issue at hand.
Social handouts are never acceptable regardless of how and why somebody got rich. Race doesn't factor in at all. If a white privileged male is born into money, or a gay Jewish black dude wins the lottery after a life of hardship, neither should be required to support other people in the form of social handouts with that money. They can choose to of course, of their own free will. I support and encourage this.
You seem to believe that social handouts are justified. Privileged individuals are successful mostly because of their social privilege, so we need to even the playing field. It's the same sort of logic as Affirmative Action. (which I also disagree with on a fundamental level) Somebody higher up sees how the world works, as it were, and tries to compensate.
I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree. I believe that social privilege comes to those who have dominance, wealth, power, status and education. (It is relative after all) Racial or other factors should be left out of the equation - so you remove stereotyping, generalizing or other numerous exceptions - and just look at it from a generic perspective.
Anyway, I think I've said here all that I've wanted to say, so unless something new comes up I'll just leave it at that.
Fundamentally, one is doing something illegal and one isn't. Practically, they are equal. But please note that I don't support Welfare or other similar handout systems either.
I don't care how old this is, but you are no older than 15, and you don't know ☺☺☺☺ about ☺☺☺☺ and need to shut up about things you don't know anything about.
Yes, the mean salary and median salary for white men is higher than any other group. That doesn't apply to any random individual.
And I'm sure there are millions of white males below the poverty line, and millions at middle class, etc. Most white males have struggled, just as most people from any demographic probably has struggled.
Does anybody think that those millions of white males who are poor, simply take satisfaction from the fact that they're in the 'same club' as the rich white males? That just because their distant cousins, the white males on wall-street, never struggled, and therefore feel a sense of ignorant self-entitlement?
I think dcartist, and cardfather hit the nail on the head, but I will still respond with a point of my own as well.
Yes, statistically speaking white people may make more money than other races, but that in no way shows the other races or at a disadvantage, or that white people or at an advantage, because of their color. Success =/= opportunity. You are not guaranteed success in the country, you are guaranteed an opportunity, which everyone has. Those newspaper surveys tally people's success, and the fact that the non-white races made less money doesn't necessarily mean the system is stacked against them because of their color, in fact it doesn't mean that at all. Your going to need some more coherent evidence to sway me, because I am not arguing that a certain group of people doesn't have more success than another (because certain groups do), I am arguing that both groups have the same opportunity and neither has a disadvantage based on race, gender, or sexuality.
I'm curious how you separate race and so on from social privilege when for decades upon decades, the only people with any power at all were rich white people. We aren't so far from that legacy that we can claim to be past it. Especially not when the figures for income and education and so on still skew towards whiteness. I appreciate that facing racial classism is an uncomfortable thing, but the fact is classism is alive and kicking.
The fact that you didn't take any handouts when you probably could have is, I guess, commendable, but arguing in favour of denying that chance to others is selfish to extremes. If you don't like handouts, don't take them. Simple as that.
Given that your standard of proof is set such that nothing could ever possibly meet it, I don't see the point in continuing this argument against you. I mean, it should just be common sense that people with established money have more and better opportunities than people who don't, but you refuse to accept even something that simple.
So as far as this subject goes, I'm not going to waste my proverbial breath.
I am just asking for some facts or evidence. I don't think that is a very high standard of proof.
But, I do accept that? I never said I don't, so please read my posts. If someone who happens to be less fortunate, financially wise, is also black, gay, or female has a rough time becoming successful, it is because of their financial situation, not because of their color, gender, or sexuality. Don't you understand that? You keep saying people or at a disadvantage because they are black, or gay, or a chick, and then when i ask for some evidence you can never provide it.
I really think it's because you keep up these negative assumptions about how the world works and you never want to back down from them.
Because typing "a woman" would be too much like pretending women are equal to men, right?
But sure, let's go about pretending that a heterosexual white cis man and a lesbian black trans woman (both middle class, for the sake of argument) will be given exactly the same opportunities.
But wasn't is just said above that financial situation is tied into race? I don't believe the two are completely separate.
:EDH:
WR Gisela, Blade of Goldnight (HOLD/100) WR
WB Teysa, Orzhov Scion (HOLD/100) WB
Really?
Do they have the same experience and credentials?
You are absolutely correct, but them having a rough life because of their finances is not the same as the system actually discriminating because of their race, which is what Teia claims happens all the time and is "common sense", yet she can't give me any evidence.
Well, when I did, you immediately rejected it out of hand with some contortionism about how everyone has the same "opportunities," ignoring for a moment that more and better opportunities lead to success. Also ignoring the common sense that the black lesbian trans woman I mentioned would hardly be given the same opportunities (job offers, social connections, etc) by others compared to the cisnormative white guy, specifically because she's so many things that are discriminated against.