Left-wing Speech Control

Post Reply New Topic

Why would you want me to do your dirty work? I'm not a moderator.

Voter Intimidation, New Black Panthers ring any bells.



Schools that have money poured into them with absolutely no effect, welfare could be argued as contributory as well. Schools could be fixed if there was some teacher accountability.

Yeah a lot of the social programs are geared towards giving a fish a day rather than teaching how to fish. They encourage dependency rather than self-sufficiency. They should be geared towards addressing the common dysfunctional paradigms held in generations of the poor.

People always say education is the answer to that, but self-restraint, emotional control, etc. are essential for reading, writing, and math. How can they see the value of education if their paradigms don't encourage the values essential for it? I guess people always parrot the education rhetoric because they assume generations of the poor share the same values as the middle class.

It's not like they're waiting for their burden to be lifted so they can become happy little middle class citizens. No, they don't even hold the same paradigms as the middle class. I grew up in poverty and I've done some reading on the subject of my own, so I'm not pulling a bunch of unfounded assumptions outta my ass.

And before anyone resorts to some knee-jerk reaction calling me heartless or victim blaming or w/e, acknowledging a culture of poverty exists doesn't mean I'm saying "To hell with the poor". It means social programs should be geared towards life skills rather than handouts and entitlements. It's not simple to overcome either. There's a s**t ton of inertia involved in paradigms, and you're asking them to change how they've perceived the world their whole lives.

But anyways, entitlements and handouts are a bunch of BS. Not that there should absolutely be no safety net, but the safety net is too easily abused as a comfort net. The poor can be helped without being reduced to dependents.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 03 Feb 2011, 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The past is irrelevant people are trying to move forward and constant application of past events to decide what races get what rights will just delay the struggle for equality. And the effects of history on the present will always be felt so I don't completely understand your argument.



Dominance is never permanent, and it has already begun lessening as it should. But dominance is no excuse to take away someones rights.



I'm mixed I have nothing to fear. If the rights that people have are given different limits they do not have the same rights, if all have a right to protection but white people receive less protection then you can not claim that your people have equal rights.

One "ethnic group" is not in control of anything. Right now the percentage of those in positions of authority may be more susceptible to skin cancer than Franciso from Ecuador. However, that is free to change at each election. So, if the highest percentage of those in power were black or whatever, would you say that those who are black or whatever are then in a dominant position in society?

How do you know so much about the "poor" and the various "entitlement programs?"

Our primary entitlement program, Social Security, is mostly a benefit for the middle class.

Only if you are too stupid to understand what I was actually saying.

It wouldn't surprise me if you were made into one. You'd probably be just slightly less of a bully than Sinsboldly was when she was given authority for a time.

I vaguely recall Fox News freaking out because a black guy with a leather jacket was hanging out near a polling place. And if the "New Black Panthers" is all you have, please realize that that is not remotely equivalent to the discrimination that blacks have faced and continue to face.


"Who controls the past controls the future."
-IngSoc slogan from 1984


Please learn to read. I have not claimed that different races should get different rights.


I reiterate: learn to read.


White people receive "less protection" only because they need less protection. There are precious few actual examples of anti-white discrimination in this country. This is really a question of how we prioritize limited resources in fighting discrimination. It simply makes no sense to put equal resources toward areas where need is unequal. People's rights are still the same.


Whites dominate the hierarchy in every sphere of American life, from political institutions to the corporate world.


By definition, yes. If blacks controlled most positions of authority and power, then they obviously would be in a dominant position in society.

How is that remotely difficult to understand?

That's not the case, so how about not resorting to knee jerk reactions? That line of thinking can go both ways, which was his point. Replacing one double standard with another is fighting fire with fire.

@ pandabear: I wasn't talking about social security and I haven't even done much reading on it, which is why you don't see me mentioning it. When I say entitlements and handouts I'm talking about the ones pertaining to the poor. Affirmative action and welfare was what I mostly had in mind. The dysfunctional paradigms of generational poverty are meant to adapt to their immediate situation rather than adapting to prospering from it, which is why entitlements and handouts are BS ways of dealing with the culture of poverty. Oh, and a lack of role models as well as fatalism also exacerbates the culture of poverty, but those are caused by the culture of poverty rather than them causing it.

@ iamnotaparakeet: Seriously? The same person who made a anti-right wing flame bait thread was a moderator?

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 03 Feb 2011, 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sinsboldy was a mod from around 2008 through 2009, was she an author of a bait thread? I don't read every thread here and occasionally take breaks when I'm tired of arguing for a time.

In reference to revisionism not the actual affects that history has on events unfolding as the unfold. That is too say claiming something happened does not have the same affect as an actual event.



See below



Sounds like separate but equal Orwell. You say that black people deserve more protection because of some perceived cultural dominance which frankly can not be said to be dominating anyone. You say this imagined or apparent dominance justifies lending more resources to one race over another, it is just discrimination based on race using imagined oppression as justification.


By definition, yes. If blacks controlled most positions of authority and power, then they obviously would be in a dominant position in society.

How is that remotely difficult to understand?[/quote]

They are only dominant to any meaningful sense if they are dominating something, a race does not dominate another simply by having larger numbers in an area.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt148380.html

This is the problem. When a bully attacks and the victim responds by attacking back you don't place equal judgement on the victim as you place on the bully. You can say both sides are wrong, but you can't say they are equivalent in their wrongness. One side is more wrong than the other. Blindness to this fact is the kind of insensitivity and unjust treatment that leads to escalation and things like school shootings. Applying a one-size-fits all axiomatic rule-based moral reasoning to the situation is an insult and an apology for the bully at the expense of the victim.

I see the black-vs-white racism issue the same way. Now please don't piss me off by claiming that I'm trying to excuse black-on-white racism because I'm not. Both sides are wrong but they are not equivalent.

What logic dictates that one is more wrong than the other? Racism can not be justified

A lot of the victimization has to do with what happened back then. Since slavery and segregation isn't happening institutionally nowadays, it's only fitting that all races be treated dead equal rather than separate but equal. Separate but equal is contradictory since it's a double standard.

If someone punches you at a bar, you have the right to send him straight to the floor. But you don't have the right to swing at someone at a bar because one of his ancestors knocked out one of yours in a bar fight.