Closed

1246

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,456
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Capitalism requires a meritocracy.
    Wrong. It requires ass kissing. That's all the skill you need. Capitalism is failing now because of it. The rich are in a panic raid to get everything before it all finally crumbles. They don't want to fix their system, because doing so would mean firing the best ass kissers in history. And without peeps telling worthless idiots that they are great, life just ain't worth living, apparently.
    :))

    Success within a modern capitalist system depends mostly on how rich your parents are. You can come up work anomalous rags-to-riches anecdotes, but social research has repeatedly shown that people who are born rich, die rich, and those who are born poor, die poor. Most people in our society simply don't have the opportunity and the means to succeed in an economy so weighted towards the status quo. I suggest you read The Myth of Meritocracy by James Bloodworth, an excellent book on why capitalism fails the poor.

    Social Justice is merely an attempt to redress the systematic prejudices which the limit the opportunities of vast swathes of the population.

    "Systematic prejudices" just sounds like "conspiracy theory" to me. Whenever anyone is asked to explain or give examples of these prejudices, they can't do it without bringing up stuff that happened over half a century ago.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Funny, I just walked past Steward Lee's Selected Short Prose on sale in WHSmith.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    Capitalism requires a meritocracy.
    Wrong. It requires ass kissing. That's all the skill you need. Capitalism is failing now because of it. The rich are in a panic raid to get everything before it all finally crumbles. They don't want to fix their system, because doing so would mean firing the best ass kissers in history. And without peeps telling worthless idiots that they are great, life just ain't worth living, apparently.
    :))

    Success within a modern capitalist system depends mostly on how rich your parents are. You can come up work anomalous rags-to-riches anecdotes, but social research has repeatedly shown that people who are born rich, die rich, and those who are born poor, die poor. Most people in our society simply don't have the opportunity and the means to succeed in an economy so weighted towards the status quo. I suggest you read The Myth of Meritocracy by James Bloodworth, an excellent book on why capitalism fails the poor.

    Social Justice is merely an attempt to redress the systematic prejudices which the limit the opportunities of vast swathes of the population.

    "Systematic prejudices" just sounds like "conspiracy theory" to me. Whenever anyone is asked to explain or give examples of these prejudices, they can't do it without bringing up stuff that happened over half a century ago.

    How about the fact that universities are disproportionately filled with students from private schools and higher income families? The fact that women are more likely to be in lower wage work and less likely to receive a promotion than their male counterparts? The fact that real wages have had their longest fall since Victorian times, while the upper 1% has continued to grow richer. That's just the stuff I can think of while I'm sitting on the toilet.

    We are not dealt a fair hand in life, and we have the power to bring about real change. The world has changed a great deal in the short time that I've been alive, a lot of it for the better. I don't believe that the unfettered hegemony of rich white men is something that we have to put up with.
  • And this is coming from someone who hopes that they will one day be a rich white man. I'd just like everyone to enjoy the privileges and opportunities that I've received.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,456
    I'm sorry, but we will have to live with rich people if we want to be a part of a wealthy society. You say that life hasn't changed for poor people since Victorian times, but that blatantly isn't the case. Poor people in Victorian times times didn't have cell phones, washing machines or microwave meals. These inventions help improve ordinary peoples lives and only happen thanks to the free market. Being poor in a rich country is nothing like being poor in a poor country, and that's thanks to the wealth and opportunity created by rich folks and their investment.

    Women are more likely to be in lower wage work because they choose to apply for lower wage jobs. Believe it or not, a lot of women still like the idea of settling down and raising a family.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    Funny, I just walked past Steward Lee's Selected Short Prose on sale in WHSmith.

    I might have to get that.
  • I'm sorry, but we will have to live with rich people if we want to be a part of a wealthy society. You say that life hasn't changed for poor people since Victorian times, but that blatantly isn't the case. Poor people in Victorian times times didn't have cell phones, washing machines or microwave meals. These inventions help improve ordinary peoples lives and only happen thanks to the free market. Being poor in a rich country is nothing like being poor in a poor country, and that's thanks to the wealth and opportunity created by rich folks and their investment.

    Women are more likely to be in lower wage work because they choose to apply for lower wage jobs. Believe it or not, a lot of women still like the idea of settling down and raising a family.

    You've completely missed the point of everything I said. It's a statistical fact that real wages have had their longest fall since Victorian times. That's got nothing to do with phones and washing machines. Do you have anything to back up your baseless assertions about wealth creation? Of course life is better is rich countries, that doesn't mean we have to put up with everything the way it is. Poor countries are full of rich people as well (look at India, Taiwan, Malaysia, the UAE), that doesn't mean their money is going to anyone but them. Trickle down economics was debunked 80 years go. The poor won their rights by organising and fighting for them, not by the grace of the wealthy.

    As I've said, I'm fine with people being rich, as long as they properly contribute and opportunities are provided to allow others to make the most of life, regardless of how much money they were born into or the colour of their skin. But at the moment that simply isn't how it works.
  • I'm sorry, but we will have to live with rich people if we want to be a part of a wealthy society. You say that life hasn't changed for poor people since Victorian times, but that blatantly isn't the case. Poor people in Victorian times times didn't have cell phones, washing machines or microwave meals. These inventions help improve ordinary peoples lives and only happen thanks to the free market. Being poor in a rich country is nothing like being poor in a poor country, and that's thanks to the wealth and opportunity created by rich folks and their investment.

    Women are more likely to be in lower wage work because they choose to apply for lower wage jobs. Believe it or not, a lot of women still like the idea of settling down and raising a family.

    Also, poor people's lives haven't been improved thanks to inane inventions like phones. They've been improved because of employment rights, healthcare, and access to education. That's got nothing to do with the free market. In fact, many of the things that have helped the poor most of all were directly opposed to the free market. I'm talking about the NHS, trade unions, shorter working hours, higher wages, etc. Every one of these proposals were fought against by conservatives and proponents of the free market. Phones and washing machines are a drop in the ocean by comparison.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,456
    It's not the "the grace of the wealthy", it's supply and demand. It's business. Steve Jobs didn't become a millionaire due to inheritance or because he was white, he became a millionaire because he was a genius who revolutionized the technology industry. He improved the lives of millions of people and he had to struggle to get there. The same goes for the vast majority of rich people. They put a lot in, so they got a lot out. That's how life works.
  • It's not the "the grace of the wealthy", it's supply and demand. It's business. Steve Jobs didn't become a millionaire due to inheritance or because he was white, he became a millionaire because he was a genius who revolutionized the technology industry. He improved the lives of millions of people and he had to struggle to get there. The same goes for the vast majority of rich people. They put a lot in, so they got a lot out. That's how life works.

    As I've said, you can come up with an anomalous rags-to-riches story, but the statistical truth is that rich people stay rich, and poor people stay poor. I go to one of the best universities in the country. I'm not here because I worked particularly hard. I was lucky to be born into a relatively middle class family and we happened to live near a decent school. I was late every day and put in very little effort, but I had the natural ability to do well. Mostof my friends worked harder and got worse grades. I don't deserve to do particularly well in life but I probably will because I've been very lucky. Most people aren't.

    And let's have a bit of perspective here. Steve Jobs sold some overpriced laptops. He's hardly Gandhi.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,456
    You say "poor people stay poor" and that makes it seem like their situation is stagnant. That's misleading because living standards are constantly improving. Even in America, 1970's poor and 2016 poor look completely different. They are only poor in relative terms, which is what you are leaving out.

    Yes, if you try and raise a family by working at McDonald's you will be pretty poor. That's why that isn't a very good idea to begin with. If poor people stay poor it's not because they lack the opportunity to better their situation.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    And let's have a bit of perspective here.
    You must be joking.


    ;)
  • You say "poor people stay poor" and that makes it seem like their situation is stagnant. That's misleading because living standards are constantly improving. Even in America, 1970's poor and 2016 poor look completely different. They are only poor in relative terms, which is what you are leaving out.

    Yes, if you try and raise a family by working at McDonald's you will be pretty poor. That's why that isn't a very good idea to begin with. If poor people stay poor it's not because they lack the opportunity to better their situation.

    Obviously it's relative, but inequality (the divide between the rich and poor) has consistently worsened since at least the 1980s. Inequality damages economic growth and productivity, so it doesn't even help rich folks. And most working class people are, actually, on lower wages and have lower living standards than they did ten years ago.

    You really think that someone from an inner city, working class community has the same life chances as those born into a suburban middle class family? You think that a child in a crowded comprehensive school has the same opportunities to succeed as those in grammar schools and private education? You think it's a coincidence that universities are full of the most expensively educated and wealthiest students in the country? That our government is dominated by students from a single school? The cards are stacked in favour of the status quo, social justice is about helping people raise themselves despite that.

    You might be happy about 20% of your fellow human beings living in poverty. And that's just in the UK and the USA. Maybe you should take a look at those South Asian economies which Steve Jobs outsourced all his factories to. Depressingly low wages and despicable working conditions; that's real capitalism. I'm proud to live in a country which helps people get back on their feet, and watching those principles be eroded by a government of absurdly wealthy individuals is revolting. What really grinds my gears is when efforts to help people are dismissed as being a"social justice warrior".

    I know how incredibly lucky I've been to succeed in this world. Unfortunately you show little awareness of how hard it is for those are less fortunate.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Since life inherently isn't fair, people should have no problem at all with social justice warriors.
    All's fair when nothing is, no?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    [ The cards are stacked in favour of the status quo, social justice is about helping people raise themselves despite that.

    That's a nice idea, the trouble is a very vocal section of these SJW's aren't interesting in 'raising' themselves, their main concern is stunting the progress of those they consider 'privileged'.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 233
    RC7 wrote: »
    [ The cards are stacked in favour of the status quo, social justice is about helping people raise themselves despite that.

    That's a nice idea, the trouble is a very vocal section of these SJW's aren't interesting in 'raising' themselves, their main concern is stunting the progress of those they consider 'privileged'.

    Just like with any movement or ideology, there are going to be a few nutjobs on social media with questionable ideas. But social justice, as a principle, it's a wonderful thing that has helped a great number of people. The world isn't a fair place, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and make it so.

    Worth political correctness, obviously there are some who would take it too far. But the idea that we should be nice to one another and not judge others for their identity (ethnic, sexual, or otherwise) is surely to be applauded. Overall I think it's done a lot more harm than good.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    [ The cards are stacked in favour of the status quo, social justice is about helping people raise themselves despite that.

    That's a nice idea, the trouble is a very vocal section of these SJW's aren't interesting in 'raising' themselves, their main concern is stunting the progress of those they consider 'privileged'.

    Just like with any movement or ideology, there are going to be a few nutjobs on social media with questionable ideas. But social justice, as a principle, it's a wonderful thing that has helped a great number of people. The world isn't a fair place, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and make it so.

    Worth political correctness, obviously there are some who would take it too far. But the idea that we should be nice to one another and not judge others for their identity (ethnic, sexual, or otherwise) is surely to be applauded. Overall I think it's done a lot more harm than good.

    That may have been what political correctness was intended to do and I would never deny its impact for the better, but at a conceptual level it seems to have shifted away from its primary focus and is now a weapon rather than an ideal. The same goes for social justice, 'Justice' is a concept we can all get on board with, but 'social justice' is a tricky one for me.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,456
    You say "poor people stay poor" and that makes it seem like their situation is stagnant. That's misleading because living standards are constantly improving. Even in America, 1970's poor and 2016 poor look completely different. They are only poor in relative terms, which is what you are leaving out.

    Yes, if you try and raise a family by working at McDonald's you will be pretty poor. That's why that isn't a very good idea to begin with. If poor people stay poor it's not because they lack the opportunity to better their situation.

    Obviously it's relative, but inequality (the divide between the rich and poor) has consistently worsened since at least the 1980s. Inequality damages economic growth and productivity, so it doesn't even help rich folks. And most working class people are, actually, on lower wages and have lower living standards than they did ten years ago.

    You really think that someone from an inner city, working class community has the same life chances as those born into a suburban middle class family? You think that a child in a crowded comprehensive school has the same opportunities to succeed as those in grammar schools and private education? You think it's a coincidence that universities are full of the most expensively educated and wealthiest students in the country? That our government is dominated by students from a single school? The cards are stacked in favour of the status quo, social justice is about helping people raise themselves despite that.

    You might be happy about 20% of your fellow human beings living in poverty. And that's just in the UK and the USA. Maybe you should take a look at those South Asian economies which Steve Jobs outsourced all his factories to. Depressingly low wages and despicable working conditions; that's real capitalism. I'm proud to live in a country which helps people get back on their feet, and watching those principles be eroded by a government of absurdly wealthy individuals is revolting. What really grinds my gears is when efforts to help people are dismissed as being a"social justice warrior".

    I know how incredibly lucky I've been to succeed in this world. Unfortunately you show little awareness of how hard it is for those are less fortunate.

    Yes, everyone has access to the same opportunities. As long as you have the qualifications you can apply for any Job you want. That is the definition of equality of opportunity. What you seem to be after is equality of outcome.

    Of course it will be much harder to become a doctor if you grow up poor living in a city, but if it's what you want to do then you can work towards your dream like anybody else. That's not "systematic discrimination".
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    You say "poor people stay poor" and that makes it seem like their situation is stagnant. That's misleading because living standards are constantly improving. Even in America, 1970's poor and 2016 poor look completely different. They are only poor in relative terms, which is what you are leaving out.

    Yes, if you try and raise a family by working at McDonald's you will be pretty poor. That's why that isn't a very good idea to begin with. If poor people stay poor it's not because they lack the opportunity to better their situation.

    Obviously it's relative, but inequality (the divide between the rich and poor) has consistently worsened since at least the 1980s. Inequality damages economic growth and productivity, so it doesn't even help rich folks. And most working class people are, actually, on lower wages and have lower living standards than they did ten years ago.

    You really think that someone from an inner city, working class community has the same life chances as those born into a suburban middle class family? You think that a child in a crowded comprehensive school has the same opportunities to succeed as those in grammar schools and private education? You think it's a coincidence that universities are full of the most expensively educated and wealthiest students in the country? That our government is dominated by students from a single school? The cards are stacked in favour of the status quo, social justice is about helping people raise themselves despite that.

    You might be happy about 20% of your fellow human beings living in poverty. And that's just in the UK and the USA. Maybe you should take a look at those South Asian economies which Steve Jobs outsourced all his factories to. Depressingly low wages and despicable working conditions; that's real capitalism. I'm proud to live in a country which helps people get back on their feet, and watching those principles be eroded by a government of absurdly wealthy individuals is revolting. What really grinds my gears is when efforts to help people are dismissed as being a"social justice warrior".

    I know how incredibly lucky I've been to succeed in this world. Unfortunately you show little awareness of how hard it is for those are less fortunate.

    Yes, everyone has access to the same opportunities. As long as you have the qualifications you can apply for any Job you want. That is the definition of equality of opportunity. What you seem to be after is equality of outcome.

    Of course it will be much harder to become a doctor if you grow up poor living in a city, but if it's what you want to do then you can work towards your dream like anybody else. That's not "systematic discrimination".

    I agree with you. Social Justice seems to be advocating for a form of collectivism that doesn't 'raise' people up, but rather brings people down to a base level. My issue, and I have always felt very strongly about this, is that this all begins at home. Whether you're from a poor or rich background a strong, cohesive family unit is a necessary springboard from which you can move forward and succeed. There are many unfortunate circumstances where, through any number of factors, this crumbles and the situation becomes chaotic and unfavourable, but I also feel a great many people make bad decisions in their lives and rather than facing up to those decisions it's easier to blame those who have what you don't. Too many people bring children into the world without the stability that will afford them opportunity. This is not about being cash rich, it's about building an environment in which kids understand that education creates opportunities, pissing about doesn't. Yeah, rich kids can piss about and live off daddy's money, tough shit. Get over it, get on with it.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    You say "poor people stay poor" and that makes it seem like their situation is stagnant. That's misleading because living standards are constantly improving. Even in America, 1970's poor and 2016 poor look completely different. They are only poor in relative terms, which is what you are leaving out.

    Yes, if you try and raise a family by working at McDonald's you will be pretty poor. That's why that isn't a very good idea to begin with. If poor people stay poor it's not because they lack the opportunity to better their situation.

    Obviously it's relative, but inequality (the divide between the rich and poor) has consistently worsened since at least the 1980s. Inequality damages economic growth and productivity, so it doesn't even help rich folks. And most working class people are, actually, on lower wages and have lower living standards than they did ten years ago.

    You really think that someone from an inner city, working class community has the same life chances as those born into a suburban middle class family? You think that a child in a crowded comprehensive school has the same opportunities to succeed as those in grammar schools and private education? You think it's a coincidence that universities are full of the most expensively educated and wealthiest students in the country? That our government is dominated by students from a single school? The cards are stacked in favour of the status quo, social justice is about helping people raise themselves despite that.

    You might be happy about 20% of your fellow human beings living in poverty. And that's just in the UK and the USA. Maybe you should take a look at those South Asian economies which Steve Jobs outsourced all his factories to. Depressingly low wages and despicable working conditions; that's real capitalism. I'm proud to live in a country which helps people get back on their feet, and watching those principles be eroded by a government of absurdly wealthy individuals is revolting. What really grinds my gears is when efforts to help people are dismissed as being a"social justice warrior".

    I know how incredibly lucky I've been to succeed in this world. Unfortunately you show little awareness of how hard it is for those are less fortunate.

    Yes, everyone has access to the same opportunities. As long as you have the qualifications you can apply for any Job you want. That is the definition of equality of opportunity. What you seem to be after is equality of outcome.

    Of course it will be much harder to become a doctor if you grow up poor living in a city, but if it's what you want to do then you can work towards your dream like anybody else. That's not "systematic discrimination".

    I agree with you. Social Justice seems to be advocating for a form of collectivism that doesn't 'raise' people up, but rather brings people down to a base level. My issue, and I have always felt very strongly about this, is that this all begins at home. Whether you're from a poor or rich background a strong, cohesive family unit is a necessary springboard from which you can move forward and succeed. There are many unfortunate circumstances where, through any number of factors, this crumbles and the situation becomes chaotic and unfavourable, but I also feel a great many people make bad decisions in their lives and rather than facing up to those decisions it's easier to blame those who have what you don't. Too many people bring children into the world without the stability that will afford them opportunity. This is not about being cash rich, it's about building an environment in which kids understand that education creates opportunities, pissing about doesn't. Yeah, rich kids can piss about and live off daddy's money, tough shit. Get over it, get on with it.

    The sort of equality of opportunity that you're advocating simply doesn't exist. As you've accepted, your life chances depend almost entirely on what sort of family you happen to be born into. Rich people will always have more opportunities than the poor. They will be read to as children, they'll be sent to better schools, they'll be given more support, both financially and emotionally, than most people can dream of. That's not equality and it's not something you can just "get over". We should be fighting to improve the life chances of those who are less fortunate. That means making sure quality schools, healthcare, and housing are affordable and accessible to everyone. That means increasing wages and making sure rich people pay their way - they're not rich of their own volition, they live in a society that maintains their position, often at the expense of others.

    Most people work very hard for very little, and a few people do little work for very much. We have the power to make the world a fairer place, that's not to be scoffed at.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835

    Most people work very hard for very little, and a few people do little work for very much. We have the power to make the world a fairer place, that's not to be scoffed at.
    I knew a guy that was an ultra-strict Libertarian until he had a crippling accident. Suddenly, social safety nets became very important to him.
    Either we are in this together, or we revert to being an array of angry tribes.
    Personally, I don't think we can reach a Star Trek future by way of fear & hate.
  • chrisisall wrote: »

    Most people work very hard for very little, and a few people do little work for very much. We have the power to make the world a fairer place, that's not to be scoffed at.
    I knew a guy that was an ultra-strict Libertarian until he had a crippling accident. Suddenly, social safety nets became very important to him.
    Either we are in this together, or we revert to being an array of angry tribes.
    Personally, I don't think we can reach a Star Trek future by way of fear & hate.

    Beautifully put sir.
  • I think both sides have made their point now (for the record @JawsIsAlive I agree with pretty much everything you've said) so I think in the interest of variety we should put this to bed for the time being and steer things back to the threads original purpose, every day things that annoy us. Because I don't think there's much more we can say on this issue and this is quite an interesting thread really, I'd hate for members who haven't joined in yet to be put off contributing because of how it's turned political, and I'd hate for the original purpose of this thread to be forgotten and for it to run its course sooner than it should.

    Anyway, something that annoys me is when people try to excuse and defend celebrities because they like their work. There's nothing wrong with enjoying it regardless of their personal lives, I'm talking about when people refuse to accept that their idols can do any wrong even when there's evidence of it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Grocery shop.

    Long line.

    Another cash register opens.

    The people at the back run to it.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,361
    Speaking of grocery stores. One time I was looking for something and this lady was acting like a complete jackass and was running as fast as she could with a shopping cart and almost plowed into me. I had to jump out of the way. She was with a group of other ladies. Boy if they ever made The Real Housewives of Ohio, they would be perfect.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    In the summer when you can't open your window at night with the light on without all kinds of critters flying in.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    In the summer when you can't open your window at night with the light on without all kinds of critters flying in.

    Or drunk people walking past, talking through a megaphone, apparently.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,456
    I can't stand beta males (and I am one myself, so there's a level of self-hatred there which makes things interesting).
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    People throwing garbage on the streets, often right next to a garbage can.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    People who take ten centuries to use a cash machine.
Sign In or Register to comment.