03-29-23 8:03 • The Almighty Amygdala
MerryIslander:
...that’s the thing my friend, urgent and controversial topics like race relations..this country doesn’t truly understand the root cause so we’re not even close to finding solutions.
I do have a question. Why are Democrats so resistant to acknowledging the “both side’s” argument? I have felt the push back from that side the most and I didn’t expect that honestly.
I've been considering this question, and I think there are several answers.
One, some of that is defensive tribalism. Deep inside the brain, the amygdala is activated when people compare their tribe to other tribes, causing people to trust and rate the members of their in-group higher than their out-group. Democrats, like any humans, resist assigning blame to their own side somewhat reflexively.
Two, the main culpability of the Democrats over the last generation has been to sell the people out to the corporations. But since everyone is doing that, in fact that is the water in which we swim and breathe in a capitalist society, it's hard for people to see how wrong it is and how much it has made things worse.
Three, the insurrectionist coup and the Big Lie are just more obviously bad, so it's super easy to point fingers at the other party.
Hope that makes sense!
As for the root causes, it's back to the amygdala. When there is widely-shared prosperity, people feel safe interacting with others who are different from them, and great advances are made in equality. But when times get tight, people return immediately to the behaviors we evolved in scarcity over millions of years - tribalism.
The real answer to the growing divides in our society is to start giving everyone enough. That's all. Then the amygdala will calm down and people can start learning to trust each other again.
That's my take, thanks so much for asking MerryIslander!
One, some of that is defensive tribalism. Deep inside the brain, the amygdala is activated when people compare their tribe to other tribes, causing people to trust and rate the members of their in-group higher than their out-group. Democrats, like any humans, resist assigning blame to their own side somewhat reflexively.
Two, the main culpability of the Democrats over the last generation has been to sell the people out to the corporations. But since everyone is doing that, in fact that is the water in which we swim and breathe in a capitalist society, it's hard for people to see how wrong it is and how much it has made things worse.
Three, the insurrectionist coup and the Big Lie are just more obviously bad, so it's super easy to point fingers at the other party.
Hope that makes sense!
As for the root causes, it's back to the amygdala. When there is widely-shared prosperity, people feel safe interacting with others who are different from them, and great advances are made in equality. But when times get tight, people return immediately to the behaviors we evolved in scarcity over millions of years - tribalism.
The real answer to the growing divides in our society is to start giving everyone enough. That's all. Then the amygdala will calm down and people can start learning to trust each other again.
That's my take, thanks so much for asking MerryIslander!
MerryIslander: In my 2 cultures, tribal instincts kicks in when it comes to stuff like protecting family, culture, roots etc. Not what political party you vote for because its not that serious.
Where does that come from?
It's actually pretty interesting. In experiments, you can take people who are total strangers in the morning and divide them at random into two rival groups, spend the day pitting them against each other in challenges, and by evening many will already have developed notable levels of in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. However if you have the groups work together in non-rival tasks, they may develop some in-group favoritism but no notable out-group discrimination. In other words, the worst instincts of out-grouping are expressed against those in competition with each other.
So to answer your question, it comes from how much people see themselves as working together vs. working against each other.
So to answer your question, it comes from how much people see themselves as working together vs. working against each other.
03-25-23 5:51 • Rationale for Don't Say Gay? No.
Harpy: I'm with DeSantis, and for "Don't Say Gay." I'm against people transitioning their gender! Just look what happened to Jazz Jennings.
Burlap: What happened? She got into Harvard, that's all I heard.
Harpy: Look into her. Depression, gained a ton of weight, asexual, doesn't feel herself. Some serious issues.
I have been following the story of Jazz, and I agree with Harpy that she's not living happily ever after. But I would be hesitant to generalize from her case. For one, many people who transition do live happily. For another, there is an obvious other factor in her story and that is she has been a reality TV and social media celebrity since early childhood, and is heavily managed and produced. That causes its own set of problems.
Either way, Jazz was certainly not harmed or made to be trans by books that feature same-sex parents, or by teachers being able to answer simple questions like "Do boys ever like boys?" Jazz is not a good reason for laws preventing normal speech in the classroom.
Either way, Jazz was certainly not harmed or made to be trans by books that feature same-sex parents, or by teachers being able to answer simple questions like "Do boys ever like boys?" Jazz is not a good reason for laws preventing normal speech in the classroom.
03-20-23 3:21 • Banning Drag Shows
WPA: Florida lawmakers have drafted legislation to ban drag show performances if children might see them in restaurants, bars, or other venues. Should the bill pass, businesses that violate the proposed rules would risk their license to operate.
House Bill 1423, sponsored by Broward Republican Randy Fine is titled “Protection of Children.” As written, the bill states that adult performances that a child may be able to see constitute an “immediate, serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare.”
In response, the legislation would make it so an adult live performance, defined in the bill as:
Any show, exhibition, or other presentation in front of a live audience which, in whole or in part, depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, specific sexual activities as defined by state statute
Performances that present lewd conduct, the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genital or breasts when it
predominantly appeals to a prurient, shameful, or morbid interest
Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community of this state as a whole with respect to what is suitable material or conduct
for the age of the child present
Taken as a whole is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for the age of the child present.
Lin: Good, it's about time!
Serious danger of what happening?
Carla: You don’t think children being exposed to suggestive sexual content are negatively affected by it? What do we have ratings for?
I don't see any evidence of it. There are zero known cases of children being harmed by drag shows. There is just no evidence at all that drag shows are negatively impacting children.
Ratings are so that parents can make a decision before seeing something if they want their kids to watch it. They are guidelines, nothing more.
In the absence of any evidence that this is harmful, the state has zero business marching in and telling parents what they can share with their kids.
You know who really hurts kids? Serious, widespread, known lifelong harm? Youth pastors.
‘Lemme know when the youth pastor ban hits’ - hashtags flooded with reports of clergy abuse
Daily Dot
Compare that to the "harm" caused by parents allowing their children to see drag and you will see this is just a moral panic aimed at othering transgenderism.
Ratings are so that parents can make a decision before seeing something if they want their kids to watch it. They are guidelines, nothing more.
In the absence of any evidence that this is harmful, the state has zero business marching in and telling parents what they can share with their kids.
You know who really hurts kids? Serious, widespread, known lifelong harm? Youth pastors.
‘Lemme know when the youth pastor ban hits’ - hashtags flooded with reports of clergy abuse
Daily Dot
Compare that to the "harm" caused by parents allowing their children to see drag and you will see this is just a moral panic aimed at othering transgenderism.
Carla: (Lurid description of drag performance) So again, you don’t think that kids get affected by being exposed to suggestive sexual content, which is what’s being targeted here?
What kids were negatively affected by it? What happened to them? Was the damage lasting, or did they recover? What damage do you think it causes?
Carla: What do we usually do when parents don’t use their noggins? We put rules and laws in place.
The question is, at what point do you set a limit?
Actual harm. That's why your fist is free to swing until it hits another guy's nose - the hit is the harm.
Carla: And how do you define actual harm when it’s not physical and it may take years to come out?
Or are you really suggesting that kids exposed to sexually explicit material doesn’t cause any harm? Because there’s plenty of research to suggest otherwise.
What research shows that drag shows are causing harm to children? In the absence of any evidence of harm, yes, it's for the parents to decide. What kind of "harm" are you even talking about?
Carla: (Long, really detailed description, invieghing against a Christmas drag show featuring "Screwdolph." Filled with outraged "...and you think this is appopriate for kids?!" exclamations. )
I read about the Christmas drag show. It featured bare-chested men dancing, and "a hip-thrust or two, similar to what is sometimes indulged in by NFL players after a touchdown." Are you seriously suggesting that the average kid would need therapy, be scarred for life, just from seeing this on stage?
I see no evidence at all that this constitutes an "immediate, serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare," let alone one requiring a new *law*. It's not about protecting kids. It's about throwing juicy red meat to a base that is terrified of changing gender norms.
You know what actually does contribute to kids growing up into healthy adults and capable citizens concerned about the rights of others? Exposure as children to people who are very different from them. "Screwdolph" is more likely to have "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" than to be detrimental. It's up to the parents to decide if their kids would benefit. Not you and not the state.
I see no evidence at all that this constitutes an "immediate, serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare," let alone one requiring a new *law*. It's not about protecting kids. It's about throwing juicy red meat to a base that is terrified of changing gender norms.
You know what actually does contribute to kids growing up into healthy adults and capable citizens concerned about the rights of others? Exposure as children to people who are very different from them. "Screwdolph" is more likely to have "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" than to be detrimental. It's up to the parents to decide if their kids would benefit. Not you and not the state.
Lin: Screw mean to fuck. Red nipples means sex flush... Why on earth, would a fuck heavy, red nippled reindeer be serious artistically beneficial for a kid?
Carla: OMG! Are you serious? (Even longer description of drag show.) What kind of social value could that possibly have!?
Why do you care? You didn't have to look at it or expose anyone else to it. It's totally by choice. If people decide that level of humor is appropriate for their kids, I agree with Traci - it's no different than allowing kids to view R-rated movies, which adults do all the time, and no business of yours.
Unless you can show how it is actually harming anyone, then people have a right to self-determination, to do and enjoy the kind of entertainment that they choose. That's really important and the more "offensive" it is, the more important that right is. That lesson has tremendous social and political value.
Unless you can show how it is actually harming anyone, then people have a right to self-determination, to do and enjoy the kind of entertainment that they choose. That's really important and the more "offensive" it is, the more important that right is. That lesson has tremendous social and political value.
Carla: So you also think that children should be allowed in strip clubs and any other adult oriented entertainment venue? Ok, gotcha. I guess we’ll agree to disagree then.
No, what you describe is a lot more like a National Lampoon movie than a porno. But at least you agree to disagree. That is not what this Florida bill is doing. Parents currently have the right to decide if their kids can see R rated entertainment and they are trying to take that away.
WPA: Things I had no problem with my kids being exposed to:
Nudity, sexual innuendos, sexual content, drag shows, burlesque, overtly sexual movies, subliminally sexual movies, anime, Gay Price parades, Mardi Gras parades, theater, music (those with sexually explicit and those without), basically any kind of performance art, music festivals.
Things I didn't allow my kids to be exposed to:
Gun shows, certain evangelical services, some political rallies, screened R-rated films that had violence, books that were violent, community events that had the likelihood of being violent, films depicting animal violence to include shooting and skinning of animals, shows that depicted violence against a particular group of people unless it was show in a sympathetic way, movies involving in occult.
Just because I'm "liberal" doesn't mean I am that different from other parents.
Lin:Then Holy shit you got some seriously different values to a lot of us…
If that’s the difference, one kid knows how to hunt and the other kid knows how to fuck 18 different ways,
I’m going to teach my kids to hunt…
Jesus Christ in hell…
I think getting offended by this must be almost as exciting as enjoying it. Really gets your imagination going.
03-03-23 3:21 • Wealth to Scale
The BIG Big chart I made in 2017 was dwarfed by the wealth concentrated during the pandemic. Luckily there is a new chart which attempts to show the grotesque wealth of the billionaire class in scale.
Wealth to Scale
03-03-23 3:21 • Better Ways to Provide for Everyone
Portia: It's hard to go through life poor. We do go to free things like street fairs, but anymore it's just food trucks and vending. You have to pay a lot for any kind of activity. It's so hard to say no to the kids all the time...no, you can't climb the rock wall. No, we can't get ice cream. No, you can't have a balloon.
Risa: That breaks my heart. There has to be a better way to provide for everyone.
Val: Its called socialism. The problem being if everyone is given everything they need, who is going to do all of the work needed to keep the country moving?
This is a really important question our society needs to answer and I'd like to shed some light on it on a number of levels - personal, economic and long-term.
At a personal level, it's a myth that most people need to be forced to work. Most people, provided with the basic needs, still have plenty of things they want - better food, fancier tech, bigger house, better car, nicer vacations, more kitchen equipment, you name it. Whole economies thrive on just "wants" that are not needs, and people are willing to work for them. And there are plenty of intangible rewards, like respect, the chance to gain skill, and especially to rise in rank, that people are willing to work like crazy for even though they are not monetary. Studies have shown that most people who get more money don't stop working, they raise their sights. There is no shortage of workers.
It's true that at the current economic level, socialism alone is not an answer, but it doesn't need to be. The fact is that socialism - systematically providing for the needs of everyone in society - is only half of a system. Capitalism is the other half, the economic engine that organizes people into labor teams and distributes the outputs - goods, and money. Each is half of what we need; they can only work together.
The most successful countries - including ours! - have a "mixed" economy, with both capitalism and socialism. In places where it works better, they are closer to half and half. Right now we are leaning much too far in the direction of capitalism, so that socialism is a misunderstood and dirty word here. If we want to provide for everyone and still use market distribution, we could shift that balance right now. When people understand that capitalism and socialism only work together, then we can fully use both.
However capitalism itself is not a fair or great system, and there is an alternative that would be better. Capitalism does not refer to the free trade of goods. That's markets. Capitalism is the ownership structure - capital is the wealth of business which is owned by a very tiny number of people. We could have a different ownership structure, where the capital is owned by the people who do the work instead. It's called Syndicalism, where instead of being owned by capitalists, businesses are owned by "syndicates" of workers, who directly share in the decisions - AND the profits - of their own work. We could still utilize market economies and self-directed distribution, but workers would get a lot more of what they produce and wealth would be less concentrated.
But, in the long term, every year it takes less human effort to produce what's necessary to distribute goods and services, while our massive over-consumption is damaging the ecologies we depend on. We need to shift human life and human work away from producing "wants, not needs" and toward helping each other, and restoring our natural systems. In the future, AIs and robots can do the unpleasant labor while humans work to create and maintain a healthy environment to thrive in. We really will have no choice.
At a personal level, it's a myth that most people need to be forced to work. Most people, provided with the basic needs, still have plenty of things they want - better food, fancier tech, bigger house, better car, nicer vacations, more kitchen equipment, you name it. Whole economies thrive on just "wants" that are not needs, and people are willing to work for them. And there are plenty of intangible rewards, like respect, the chance to gain skill, and especially to rise in rank, that people are willing to work like crazy for even though they are not monetary. Studies have shown that most people who get more money don't stop working, they raise their sights. There is no shortage of workers.
It's true that at the current economic level, socialism alone is not an answer, but it doesn't need to be. The fact is that socialism - systematically providing for the needs of everyone in society - is only half of a system. Capitalism is the other half, the economic engine that organizes people into labor teams and distributes the outputs - goods, and money. Each is half of what we need; they can only work together.
The most successful countries - including ours! - have a "mixed" economy, with both capitalism and socialism. In places where it works better, they are closer to half and half. Right now we are leaning much too far in the direction of capitalism, so that socialism is a misunderstood and dirty word here. If we want to provide for everyone and still use market distribution, we could shift that balance right now. When people understand that capitalism and socialism only work together, then we can fully use both.
However capitalism itself is not a fair or great system, and there is an alternative that would be better. Capitalism does not refer to the free trade of goods. That's markets. Capitalism is the ownership structure - capital is the wealth of business which is owned by a very tiny number of people. We could have a different ownership structure, where the capital is owned by the people who do the work instead. It's called Syndicalism, where instead of being owned by capitalists, businesses are owned by "syndicates" of workers, who directly share in the decisions - AND the profits - of their own work. We could still utilize market economies and self-directed distribution, but workers would get a lot more of what they produce and wealth would be less concentrated.
But, in the long term, every year it takes less human effort to produce what's necessary to distribute goods and services, while our massive over-consumption is damaging the ecologies we depend on. We need to shift human life and human work away from producing "wants, not needs" and toward helping each other, and restoring our natural systems. In the future, AIs and robots can do the unpleasant labor while humans work to create and maintain a healthy environment to thrive in. We really will have no choice.
Anon: What if we don't want to provide for everyone?
Then you should change what you want. It doesn't work.
Bobb: We already do provide for everyone. Our social programs provide food, medical care, shelter, education free and often times cash benefits for anyone under the poverty line.
What else do we need to provide? We’re kind of at our max tax-wise.
Yes we already do, and humans always do, but we are trying to get it cheap upfront and then paying ten times the cost in social ills. We make social aid hard to get and only for the most desperate, so the working poor still do not have their basic needs met.
First, we need to structure the economy so workers keep more of what they make, and then fewer people would need basic help.
Second, we need to guarantee shelter and services. There are hundreds of thousands of homeless, or mentally ill, or elderly, etc in this country who are not getting their needs met.
Third, we need to make sure every person, no matter where they are on the "poverty line," gets great education and great healthcare, and great opportunities to grow. If only a few of them go on to big success, it pays the whole society back in new discovery and creation. It's worth the investment.
Most importantly, our society is NOT "at our max tax-wise." The amount of wealth held by the richest 1% in this country is so vast and uncountable it could pay for lavish social services with a skim off the top they would never miss. They need to pay the workers who are amassing their fortunes a greater share, and pay taxes enough to support their countryfolk - their customers and their workforce and their fellow citizens - in order to have a good society to do business in. They can afford it.
(some discussion)
Great discussion Ladies! There are several ideas presented here I'd like to address.
1. Yes, it's complex, but at the same time simple. We have far, far more than enough. We should share a little more so that more people can prosper.
2. Is it "too expensive" to meet everyone's needs, and are we "already providing enough" or "already paying enough"? No, no and no.
• The basics that everyone needs are not expensive - decent food, preventative health care, well-trained teachers with small class sizes. Simple housing, basic services, career training. This could be provided for every person with literal crumbs from the tables of the rich.
• It's not enough to provide help just to those "below the poverty line." The working and even the middle classes struggle to afford basic healthcare and get decent education. Why should that be a struggle? Who does that help?
• Ordinary people don't need to pay more in taxes, but the very wealthy and rich corporations most certainly can and should. It's hard to imagine how much more money they have than everyone else. They can afford it. I'll come back to this.
3. Must we use deprivation to force humans to work? No, for several reasons.
• Studies show that most people who get some financial aid don't stop working, and people who do get state aid don't stay on it for very long. The largest vulnerable group is the working poor, who are *working* but still can't afford emergencies, vacations or college. If this group could get decent healthcare and educational opportunities without debt, just think of the human potential that could be unleashed!
• Most humans will work for what they consider worthwhile. Can you blame people at the bottom of the economy, where the jobs are terrible and people barely get by even when they work hard, for feeling it's not worth the effort? To get their participation, we have to make jobs that are worthwhile to have, that pay good money and focus on things people can do to make a difference.
• It's not important to force every human to work at the same time. For one thing, there are always some people who are not working - children, the elderly, the disabled, etc. - and we are morally bound to take care of them. As long as we are providing for those in need, how much does it hurt if a few of the people in line are able-bodied? Not at all. For another, we have invented amazing technology. We should let it do some of the work and every human should work less. Life is short.
The wealth that has been built by many generations of working people has been concentrated in the hands of less than 1% of the population. They own almost everything everyone has ever done for the last 400 years. Those individuals did not earn all this, the work of millions for centuries, and them having it is wrecking the economy for everyone else. The wealth to simply feed, clothe, house, heal and teach every human is here. They could pay for all of it and still be way richer than anyone else.
BIG Big Chart HERE
First, we need to structure the economy so workers keep more of what they make, and then fewer people would need basic help.
Second, we need to guarantee shelter and services. There are hundreds of thousands of homeless, or mentally ill, or elderly, etc in this country who are not getting their needs met.
Third, we need to make sure every person, no matter where they are on the "poverty line," gets great education and great healthcare, and great opportunities to grow. If only a few of them go on to big success, it pays the whole society back in new discovery and creation. It's worth the investment.
Most importantly, our society is NOT "at our max tax-wise." The amount of wealth held by the richest 1% in this country is so vast and uncountable it could pay for lavish social services with a skim off the top they would never miss. They need to pay the workers who are amassing their fortunes a greater share, and pay taxes enough to support their countryfolk - their customers and their workforce and their fellow citizens - in order to have a good society to do business in. They can afford it.
(some discussion)
Great discussion Ladies! There are several ideas presented here I'd like to address.
1. Yes, it's complex, but at the same time simple. We have far, far more than enough. We should share a little more so that more people can prosper.
2. Is it "too expensive" to meet everyone's needs, and are we "already providing enough" or "already paying enough"? No, no and no.
• The basics that everyone needs are not expensive - decent food, preventative health care, well-trained teachers with small class sizes. Simple housing, basic services, career training. This could be provided for every person with literal crumbs from the tables of the rich.
• It's not enough to provide help just to those "below the poverty line." The working and even the middle classes struggle to afford basic healthcare and get decent education. Why should that be a struggle? Who does that help?
• Ordinary people don't need to pay more in taxes, but the very wealthy and rich corporations most certainly can and should. It's hard to imagine how much more money they have than everyone else. They can afford it. I'll come back to this.
3. Must we use deprivation to force humans to work? No, for several reasons.
• Studies show that most people who get some financial aid don't stop working, and people who do get state aid don't stay on it for very long. The largest vulnerable group is the working poor, who are *working* but still can't afford emergencies, vacations or college. If this group could get decent healthcare and educational opportunities without debt, just think of the human potential that could be unleashed!
• Most humans will work for what they consider worthwhile. Can you blame people at the bottom of the economy, where the jobs are terrible and people barely get by even when they work hard, for feeling it's not worth the effort? To get their participation, we have to make jobs that are worthwhile to have, that pay good money and focus on things people can do to make a difference.
• It's not important to force every human to work at the same time. For one thing, there are always some people who are not working - children, the elderly, the disabled, etc. - and we are morally bound to take care of them. As long as we are providing for those in need, how much does it hurt if a few of the people in line are able-bodied? Not at all. For another, we have invented amazing technology. We should let it do some of the work and every human should work less. Life is short.
The wealth that has been built by many generations of working people has been concentrated in the hands of less than 1% of the population. They own almost everything everyone has ever done for the last 400 years. Those individuals did not earn all this, the work of millions for centuries, and them having it is wrecking the economy for everyone else. The wealth to simply feed, clothe, house, heal and teach every human is here. They could pay for all of it and still be way richer than anyone else.
BIG Big Chart HERE
Risa: It’s hard to want to be abused in the service industry or teaching or even factory work, and still just be scraping by financially. If their quality of life could be a bit comparable to the one on “free benefits” I mean, I don’t really blame them.
I think you are absolutely correct that many don't want to work in horrible bottom-economy jobs because they do not seem very worthwhile. Why give your whole life over for the benefit of another if you can't even get a basic life from it? What's needed here is not just social aid - we need to make good jobs for living wages available for everyone who wants them.
Sure, not everyone will want to work harder to get more, but most people do. That's plenty. If a few people are "lazy" and don't try to reach their potential, so what? It's their loss, their missed opportunity to make the most of themselves. It doesn't hurt the group. "Lazy people" exist for a reason - they often come in handy.
Sure, not everyone will want to work harder to get more, but most people do. That's plenty. If a few people are "lazy" and don't try to reach their potential, so what? It's their loss, their missed opportunity to make the most of themselves. It doesn't hurt the group. "Lazy people" exist for a reason - they often come in handy.
Risa: I like how it was on The Orville - kinda like Star Trek. How do they measure wealth when anyone can just push a button and get filet mignon? They had it so that the "wealth" of each person was determined by their contribution to society.
Great point Risa, I think non-monetary utopias in the Star Trek/Orville model get a lot of things right. The needs of all are met, but people still act just like people everywhere - some work very hard to outshine others, most people like to contribute in their way, and the highest achievers are rewarded with respect and authority.
Humans will probably always arrange themselves hierarchically. But you can get the most out of society by making the hierarchies open and upwardly mobile, where rank relates to achievement and anyone can rise to the top.
Humans will probably always arrange themselves hierarchically. But you can get the most out of society by making the hierarchies open and upwardly mobile, where rank relates to achievement and anyone can rise to the top.
Val: Duh, that's how it is right now in the Land of Opportunity! There is no race, religion or creed that will define your future… your own will alone will get you there, that’s it.
You either try REALLY hard, or you don’t.
Take my father in law. He was a poor illegal immigrant and he worked really hard and now he lives in a million dollar home. My FIL expected a lot of himself, he didn’t even have the parents to expect it… still did amazing. But most people need parents to push them…
There are plenty of people who tried just as hard as your FIL but did not make it out of poverty. But even supposing that everyone who tries REALLY hard can leave poverty, why make it this hard? We could easily make it so that even people who's best is average can make it out of poverty, and only people who are the purest failures stay there. That's what the working classes are supposed to be - a healthy place for just folks to live average, but good, lives. What are we gaining from making it hard that is worth so many growing up in deprivation?
Risa: I have to agree with Sally, it feels wrong to put some people through grueling hours of 60+ hours manual labor & sacrifice just to scrape by, when others are born into wealth or get a similar salary with little sacrifice due to privilege.
Val: Excuse me Risa, are you really arguing that the ones who work hard should be providing wealth (not just food, shelter and medical care) to everyone else !?
Literally no one is arguing for this, so why are you constantly arguing against it? Strawman.
Working people should not be paying more in to the system, they should be getting more out of it. The *only* people who should be paying more into the system are the ones who can easily afford it, the billionaires.
Likewise, no one is saying that anyone should be "given" personal wealth. Right now we inadequately "ensure" only the crappiest levels of education, healthcare and sustenance. So many people are still not getting enough to thrive, including many people who work very hard.
What we need, and what the billionaires can easily afford, is *excellent* wages, and *excellent* levels of public education, public healthcare and public sustenance. Why the fuck not? Most people will still want the extras that come with hard work, like cars and bigger houses and more frequent vacations and fancy jewelry and all the things that people already work for. Excellent wages provide a great incentive. So why not just make sure that there is good food, healthcare and housing to fall back on if people try for that and fail?
You can stop pretending that "this country" cannot afford it.
https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
Wealth to Scale
Working people should not be paying more in to the system, they should be getting more out of it. The *only* people who should be paying more into the system are the ones who can easily afford it, the billionaires.
Likewise, no one is saying that anyone should be "given" personal wealth. Right now we inadequately "ensure" only the crappiest levels of education, healthcare and sustenance. So many people are still not getting enough to thrive, including many people who work very hard.
What we need, and what the billionaires can easily afford, is *excellent* wages, and *excellent* levels of public education, public healthcare and public sustenance. Why the fuck not? Most people will still want the extras that come with hard work, like cars and bigger houses and more frequent vacations and fancy jewelry and all the things that people already work for. Excellent wages provide a great incentive. So why not just make sure that there is good food, healthcare and housing to fall back on if people try for that and fail?
You can stop pretending that "this country" cannot afford it.
https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
Wealth to Scale
02-21-23 2:21 • National Divorce
Lawrence: Marjarie Taylor Greene is calling for a National Divorce of red states and blue states.
Val: I don't disagree with her. I honestly don't see any reasonable way to reach accord between people who are for law and order and those that want to disband prisons, defund police and give money every month to people who CHOOSE not to work. Add to that the rest of the radical agenda in addition to what I mentioned.
There's really no middle ground to be reached. Things have gotten too far apart and we're far too polarized to come to any kind of compromise.
First of all, is that what you honestly think Democrats in this country want? Because, it isn't. Those ideas have no traction in the party, and are not what Democrats from coast to coast overwhelmingly want. Do you really think these extreme views, expressed by a few, mean that you can't compromise with any Democrats in this country? They are all alienable?
Secondly, there is plenty of middle ground. How about we support law and order AND stop using prisons for everything? How about we support stronger police presence, but doing smarter and better things? How about we support higher wages and better support for working people so that fewer fall into poverty? How about we stop making caricatures of people who disagree and go to where they really are?
I think you should understand what your fellow Americans really are before you decide you would be better off without them. Because you would not be.
Secondly, there is plenty of middle ground. How about we support law and order AND stop using prisons for everything? How about we support stronger police presence, but doing smarter and better things? How about we support higher wages and better support for working people so that fewer fall into poverty? How about we stop making caricatures of people who disagree and go to where they really are?
I think you should understand what your fellow Americans really are before you decide you would be better off without them. Because you would not be.
Lawrence: She says that in red states, they won't have dildos for sale in the Walmart next to the children's toothbrushes anymore.
Kel: In my state they are behind the counter.
Val: That's not exactly where kids can't see them!
This is worth proposing Rexit over??
Lawrence: No...it's just a way of showing what she thinks is wrong with the left. They are hyper focused on sex and teaching kids about sex.
She's the one talking about dildos. I'd say she's hyper-focused on sex. Repression takes more focus than freedom.
02-21-23 2:21 • A Basic Good Life
Lawrence: Bobb, $175K salary is not "wealthy or privileged."
Bobb: It is.
That amount of money means they know their children will be able to eat as much as they want every night…
It means they will never have to worry about whether or not the electric bill can be paid.
It means never having to worry that the water will get shut off,
It means knowing you can afford the gas you need to put into the car to get to work,
It means being lucky enough to have that car,
It means being able to go on vacation wherever you want, even if you have to save up to take the trip…
It means being able to afford to get to a family members funeral across the country if you suddenly need to…
It means being able to afford a loved ones funeral.
It means being able to go to whatever dance or event you want and look good showing up…
It means being able to get into any craft you want and afford all the materials whenever you want…
It means being able to afford that school tuition for your child so they will be three steps ahead of everyone else when the time comes for them to make a living on their own…
I think we’ve lost sight of what it means to be wealthy and privileged.
Most Americans, let alone people on earth can’t do that.
Do you think every person should have everything from this list?
Bobb: I think it would be fantastic, but not feasible.
Well, we could generalize a bit. It's not feasible for every person to have a car, but every person could have transportation adequate to their needs. Not everyone can be "three steps ahead of everyone else" but everyone could get excellent education. Not everyone can travel anywhere or pursue every interest, but everyone could have fun places to go and interesting things to do. Etc.
So if your list just represents a decent, fun, enriching human life without deprivation, should every person have this?
So if your list just represents a decent, fun, enriching human life without deprivation, should every person have this?
Bobb: Sure, everyone should have it… it just doesn’t really work out in reality for everyone to be able to afford it.
We should be working hard to change this. It's not unfeasible to make it so that everyone can afford a basic good life. Every person who we allow to grow up hungry, uneducated and bored becomes a risk factor.
Val: I disagree! We get out of life what we put into it!
Val, thanks for speaking with me. I don't disagree with your sentiment but I would like to discuss the means.
Val: People also need to put forth the effort to create the circumstances that allow them to live a life that is fulfilling on their terms.
Yes, but we can get people to put in more effort by giving them more to start with. People will always have to do more and risk more to get more fulfillment out of life, of course. But having people live in desperation does not make this happen more.
It works better if everyone has a basic, solid bottom to start from, which includes a full education, a home and food, and chances to grow. Does anyone really deserve less than that? Especially considering that most people get the circumstances of their parents as their starting line, which doesn't reflect their own effort at all. Who is their hunger helping?
It works better if everyone has a basic, solid bottom to start from, which includes a full education, a home and food, and chances to grow. Does anyone really deserve less than that? Especially considering that most people get the circumstances of their parents as their starting line, which doesn't reflect their own effort at all. Who is their hunger helping?
Val: There are many individuals that don't feel they need to make an effort, that they should just be afforded a good life simply existing.
There are very few people like this. Most people who get assistance work, and most don't remain on it very long. Most people who don't work, can't, because of mental issues or health issues or disabilities, local declines, etc. There are very few who, given a real education and a real chance to do something they are interested in, would rather sit home.
Secondly, poverty does not force people to be more industrious, it does the opposite. It denies people who want to be industrious by providing few good opportunities. If what you want is people working, social support is how you get it.
Lastly, there are always just a few seemingly useless hangers-on, but they don't cost much and they are available if you need to move a couch.
Secondly, poverty does not force people to be more industrious, it does the opposite. It denies people who want to be industrious by providing few good opportunities. If what you want is people working, social support is how you get it.
Lastly, there are always just a few seemingly useless hangers-on, but they don't cost much and they are available if you need to move a couch.
Val: That's not right, when others have to work toward that good life.
It is right to provide people the tools they need to work toward that good life. People can grow and create better circumstances for a life that is more fulfilling on their terms from there.
Val: Those taking steps toward living their fulfilling life shouldn't have to carry that dead weight on their backs.
First of all, it's a pretty light weight. Less than 15% of our spending goes to helping those in poverty and our public education budgets are thin. We could easily spend more which is being wasted elsewhere on getting people in the game, without affecting your bottom line at all. And what could be a better investment than that?
Secondly, you are going to carry that dead weight no matter what. You are going to carry it in higher crime and more prisons and more social services and more addiction and more people living in the streets. You are going to pay about six times more for the social ills that result than you would have paid providing people with education, housing and opportunity instead. If what you want is less weight on your back, you can get better results for bargain basement prices by helping people up front.
Thirdly, helping people is the moral thing to do. He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Secondly, you are going to carry that dead weight no matter what. You are going to carry it in higher crime and more prisons and more social services and more addiction and more people living in the streets. You are going to pay about six times more for the social ills that result than you would have paid providing people with education, housing and opportunity instead. If what you want is less weight on your back, you can get better results for bargain basement prices by helping people up front.
Thirdly, helping people is the moral thing to do. He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Val: Those taking steps toward living their fulfilling life shouldn't have to carry that dead weight on their backs.
So, I don't disagree with your outcomes, but creating an impoverished class has never maximized human potential. Instead it squanders it. We can build a harder-working and more compassionate society by helping everyone contribute.
Thanks again Val!
Thanks again Val!
Val: I don't disagree with you at all Sally. What I think needs to happen is that people need to actually SEE that there's better that they can achieve. From what I've seen, many people simply don't realize that there IS better and there IS another side. Thanks for the reply.
02-11-23 2:21 • Swearing an Oath of it
Lawrence: Calling the "sexual revolution" a "threat to our church," First Baptist Church in Jacksonville will now require congregants to sign a statement affirming their opposition to LGBTQ+ freedoms if they want to remain members.
They should have to guarantee what they are saying is true.
Lawrence: They do. They say “the only way to guarantee a spot in heaven is through this church.”
It’s quite easy to guarantee something that can only be validated after death.
Yes. And just as easy to claim to "know" that God hates gays, or whatever.
Such easy claims are so worthless. That's nothing like a guarantee. If they want to contractually obligate their members to hate gays, or whatever, the church should be contractually obligated to demonstrate that their claims about sexuality are true. They aren't, and they can't, and the "contract" is bullshit, but it illustrates the larger issue - religion has a truth problem.
Such easy claims are so worthless. That's nothing like a guarantee. If they want to contractually obligate their members to hate gays, or whatever, the church should be contractually obligated to demonstrate that their claims about sexuality are true. They aren't, and they can't, and the "contract" is bullshit, but it illustrates the larger issue - religion has a truth problem.
01-11-23 1:23 • Another Vigilante Shoots a Kid
ElBee: A 13 year old 6th grader, Karon Blake, was shot several times by a man who’s accusing the boy of breaking into cars in his neighborhood. On Saturday around 4 am the man said he heard noise outside. He said there were probably two more who ran.
So far the man hasn’t been charged but the 13 year old was not armed. This should be an open and shut case, gunning down an unarmed kid in the street. For what? Stealing some change or miscellaneous items in the guy’s car? Another on the list for guns used for murder not protection.
Bobb: It’s something that has to be drilled into kids minds. You don’t steal from other people’s properties because you will get shot. Or at the very least, shot at… you’d be surprised how many times it happens, especially in rural areas.
People will start shooting at their trash cans if they think a raccoon is trying to get in…they’ll shoot at dogs they think are going after their chickens… rural homes are a very dangerous place to sneak around because of the amount of times people will feel comfortable shooting.
Jessy: Here me out here, but so fucking what if he was stealing from cars. It's just stuff. Not worth a life and not worth going all wild west on a child.
Bobb: It’s just stuff? That's MY stuff. I am not required to share them with someone who thinks they are entitled to them just because "it's just stuff"... I mean at what point does that end?
There are other ways to protect things besides killing people. You can have locks, alarms, lights, cameras. You can have insurance. You can call the police. There is no point where your item is more important than a person's life.
Did you know that people in Europe own things too?
Did you know that people in Europe own things too?
Bobb: In Arkansas, how to approach and knock on a door is a lesson in and of itself...people answer the door with gun in hand. You teach kids from a very young age, don't ever go around back, don't ever go where there's no trespassing signs...
I'm not seeing what is supposed to be good about this. It sounds terrible. I can't imagine being that afraid all the time.
No wonder more people die by gun in Arkansas than in most other states.
Fact is, states with the toughest gun laws and the fewest guns also have the lowest crime.
The five states with the lowest gun death rates, in deaths per 100,000, are:
Massachusetts (3.4)
New York (3.9)
New Jersey (4.1)
Hawaii (4.4)
Rhode Island (4.6).
These five states also have the lowest gun ownership rates in the U.S., and have some of the lowest property crime.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state
10 Most Dangerous States in the US: 2022
Alaska
New Mexico
Tennessee
Arkansas
Arizona
Louisiana
Missouri
South Carolina
South Dakota
Michigan
https://propertyclub.nyc/article/most-d ... -in-the-us
I think we all know this already. There are more guns than people in this country, every one a dangerous ticking time bomb waiting to explode in someone's face. They are not an answer to anything.
Let's get serious about effective crime prevention and responsive law enforcement. We can make that job easier by having fewer guns.
No wonder more people die by gun in Arkansas than in most other states.
Fact is, states with the toughest gun laws and the fewest guns also have the lowest crime.
The five states with the lowest gun death rates, in deaths per 100,000, are:
Massachusetts (3.4)
New York (3.9)
New Jersey (4.1)
Hawaii (4.4)
Rhode Island (4.6).
These five states also have the lowest gun ownership rates in the U.S., and have some of the lowest property crime.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state
10 Most Dangerous States in the US: 2022
Alaska
New Mexico
Tennessee
Arkansas
Arizona
Louisiana
Missouri
South Carolina
South Dakota
Michigan
https://propertyclub.nyc/article/most-d ... -in-the-us
I think we all know this already. There are more guns than people in this country, every one a dangerous ticking time bomb waiting to explode in someone's face. They are not an answer to anything.
Let's get serious about effective crime prevention and responsive law enforcement. We can make that job easier by having fewer guns.
Read more in the Archives.