ITT: People who can't take a joke

[Mexi]

It's ridiculous. It's victim mentality. I'm a victim of my environment, powerless to change my future. And because I have to work *harder* than some other guy, it's not fair. I should be given the same opportunities he has. If he gets to go to some snobby private school, I *should* be given the opportunity to go that snobby private school... Regardless of whether I have to earn my way in there. Regardless of how much it costs to go there, I should be given tuition free or at a significantly reduced cost. I should get. I should want. I should get. I should have. Fuck. That. Shit.

Until that private snobby school gets over run by boneheads and morons and becomes just like any other run of the mill public school. And no one can get a good education in a public school with boneheads and morons. Right?

And yet some people do.

Entitlement. Victim Mentality. Laziness. Stupidity. Those will continue to bite us all in the ass until they are controlled and curtailed. And you don't do that by dropping buckets of money into poor neighborhoods to bring them *up* to someone else's standards.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. in my job, I work with at-risk families who are in the lower-income demographic and often struggle with alot of psychological problems that are associated with poverty. when money was invested to this small neighbourhood, (as in cleaning up the areas, more police presence, viable community center w/ access to programs) there was a noticable shift in lower drug/gang related crimes. more kids were graduating highschool and when bursaries were offered for these low-income kids, they stepped up (academically) and were able to get a post secondary education.

It's not about propping up the poor to "someone elses" standard, they're OUR standards. standards that should be achievable by most people who are given a fair opportunity that doesn't get squandered.

We live in a society, and despite any left/right bickering that might go on, we should really look at the kind of society we want to live in, and whether we want to deal with the same issues with poverty we've been dealing with forever. now I'm not saying GIVE THE POOR HANDOUTS, but provide them with the means to help themselves, and more often than not, they will work their asses off to have something better.

also, to label all poor as having victim mentality or are just lazy/stupid is ignorant and just perpetuates the same stereotypical notion that people have of right-wingers. I'm sure you're speaking of the minority of the poor who may have those qualities, but it's not helpful when wanting to address these core issues that affect so many people. suggesting people are poor only because of their bad decisions is as much a cop out as the poor saying they're a product of their environment.

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

The idea that the income of a person's parents affects their ability to get an education has always felt a little odd to me. I know it can, certainly. Honestly, if my parents were multimillionaires, i'd probably have expected them to help me out with college. In reality, they're pretty firmly on the sub-$50k side of things, so I didn't ask them for a penny. In fact, neither did any of my siblings, and so far every one of my parents' children have a degree of some sort (one has an MA, three have BAs, and one an AA), all without costing my parents a dime.

Whether it was through loans, grants, scholarships or in my case military service, we all found a way to pay for college. It never once struck me as unfair that we had to, whether or not others had an easier time of it. If anything I think I appreciated the opportunity more because I had to work for it.

 

[synrgy]

Your argument about the 50K family versus the 200K or whatever family is silly....

I'm not denying the disparity....

I never stated that the 50k family deserves anything.

Regardless, we are agreed that there is a disparity, which is all I was really trying to get at, so I think to go any deeper into this particular rabbit hole would be counter productive.

As always, I appreciate your candor.

 

[Lrrrr]

Fair enough, let me just say that their *view* of stealing or breaking the law as being a necessity is wrong. It's not justifiable. It's not "OK". And I think it has a lot to do with a misguided sense of entitlement, poor work ethic (if any) and a subculture that celebrates moronic behavior as though it were virtue.

I actually did a paper on this a few years back for school. The absolute poorest area of the country is the western part of the plains states (Kansas up through the Dakotas). Ironically these areas have some of the lowest crime rates in the country.

My personal reasoning for this is an increased sense of community, Christian ideals (or common decency to the non-Christians ) and the fact there isn't the same sense of entitlement that you find in the more liberal areas of the country (maybe because there is a general absence of wealth in those regions, maybe it's due to something else).

 

[orb451]

I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. in my job, I work with at-risk families who are in the lower-income demographic and often struggle with alot of psychological problems that are associated with poverty.

Tell me, what psychological problems are associated with poverty? The inability to pay their bills? The inability to find a decent job? The inability to increase their skill set? The inability to use birth control (or in extreme cases abortion) to curtail their growing families? The inability to focus their time and effort on productive outlets?

You'll have to forgive me, I grew up around poor, low-income housing families. I grew up in a blue-collar, working class town outside of Boston. I moved to LA and have seen through my experiences over the years the good and bad in poor people, not all poor people, just the ones I've encountered, known or been friends with. I wouldn't say I have *more* experience with them than you. Only that my experience differs.

What I struggle with is things like our state (California for me) paying 61 million dollars in EBT benefits for families to spend it in Vegas casinos and vacations in Hawaii. Give me a bit, I'm at work but I'll dig up the article as a reference as soon as I can. But when I see things like that, spread across what is undoubtedly more than a *few* low income or "poor" people, I get frustrated. I also find it dismaying that our state is willing to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) on market research just to come up with a new "branding" campaign for EBT because of the "stigma" attached with food stamps.

when money was invested to this small neighbourhood, (as in cleaning up the areas, more police presence, viable community center w/ access to programs) there was a noticable shift in lower drug/gang related crimes. more kids were graduating highschool and when bursaries were offered for these low-income kids, they stepped up (academically) and were able to get a post secondary education.

More cops = less crime (in many instances, but not all). When you remove the criminal elements, I agree, people are better off. No argument there. Nor any argument on spending money for that outcome.

It's not about propping up the poor to "someone elses" standard, they're OUR standards. standards that should be achievable by most people who are given a fair opportunity that doesn't get squandered.

I guess that's my issue, I think the standards *are* achievable but they require more effort than you are probably willing to admit, or more effort than they themselves are willing to put forth. I have no empathy for people that want things handed to them easily. If it were impossible for people to "break free" of the cycle, no one would. There would be *no* rags to riches success stories. And yet there are, many, from every type of person and every area of the country, where people succeed despite what you call the lack of "fair" opportunities.

We live in a society, and despite any left/right bickering that might go on, we should really look at the kind of society we want to live in, and whether we want to deal with the same issues with poverty we've been dealing with forever. now I'm not saying GIVE THE POOR HANDOUTS, but provide them with the means to help themselves, and more often than not, they will work their asses off to have something better.

I can almost agree with the whole teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime thing, my only concern is the willingness of those being given a hand "up" to act accordingly and not waste the opportunity.

also, to label all poor as having victim mentality or are just lazy/stupid is ignorant and just perpetuates the same stereotypical notion that people have of right-wingers. I'm sure you're speaking of the minority of the poor who may have those qualities, but it's not helpful when wanting to address these core issues that affect so many people. suggesting people are poor only because of their bad decisions is as much a cop out as the poor saying they're a product of their environment.

So you're complaining about a sweeping generalization whilst using one yourself? Priceless. I'm not saying *all* poor people are this, that or the other thing. It's not helpful to have any kind of Left/Right conversation on here without the terms Liberal/Lefty and Conservative/Right-Winger being thrown around and abused. And yet it still happens. My take on it is, oh fucking well. Life goes on.

 

[orb451]

I actually did a paper on this a few years back for school. The absolute poorest area of the country is the western part of the plains states (Kansas up through the Dakotas). Ironically these areas have some of the lowest crime rates in the country.

My personal reasoning for this is an increased sense of community, Christian ideals (or common decency to the non-Christians ) and the fact there isn't the same sense of entitlement that you find in the more liberal areas of the country (maybe because there is a general absence of wealth in those regions, maybe it's due to something else).

Exactly. Look at post quake Japan. How much looting and vandalism occurred? And now compare that to post Hurricane Katrina. See the difference? And it's *easy* to say that it's Blacks vs. Asians but it's not about race, it's about cultures and more specifically sub-cultures. My hat is forever off to the people of Japan going through that, rebuilding and doing so with as much dignity as possible.

My middle finger is forever extended to the thieving pieces of shit in N.O. (regardless of what color they are/were) that felt that the natural disaster was a good time to steal from their own and others' neighborhoods, businesses, etc. I have ZERO sympathy for them. For the hardworking people that got robbed, or just had the disaster happen, and had the god damned common sense and decency not to use it as an excuse to line their pockets with electronics and loot, my hat and my wallet were open and willing to help.

 

[Lrrrr]

Exactly. Look at post quake Japan. How much looting and vandalism occurred? And now compare that to post Hurricane Katrina. See the difference? And it's *easy* to say that it's Blacks vs. Asians but it's not about race, it's about cultures and more specifically sub-cultures. My hat is forever off to the people of Japan going through that, rebuilding and doing so with as much dignity as possible.

My middle finger is forever extended to the thieving pieces of shit in N.O. (regardless of what color they are/were) that felt that the natural disaster was a good time to steal from their own and others' neighborhoods, businesses, etc. I have ZERO sympathy for them. For the hardworking people that got robbed, or just had the disaster happen, and had the god damned common sense and decency not to use it as an excuse to line their pockets with electronics and loot, my hat and my wallet were open and willing to help.

I feel the same way man. I'm all for bettering my community, sharing what little I have with others and giving my brothers and sisters a shoulder to stand on. In a utopian world, socialism would be awesome. We would all work hard for each other, use our better judgement and avoid taking advantage of circumstance. Too bad that we don't. I lean conservative not because I'm a reclusive asshole looking out for myself and myself only. I lean conservative because I believe that I and the people that immediately surround me have a better idea of what is good for myself and my community. I refuse to support the forced and unchecked "charity" mandated by some nameless face in Washington. It's impossible to do what is best for somebody when you generalize and pigeon hole millions at a time.

It's for these reasons that I'll vote for smaller government and for more local/state rights. There is a place for national government, our founding fathers knew as much, but I'm with you in that they would be appalled at our political climate today.

 

[chronocide]

That last part is the key, "if they so choose". Focus on that, because that's my point. If the parents choose to give their kids a "free" ride, then yes, they can. That doesn't mean it happens automatically or that it's a "given". The latter is what I gathered from your responses. Like Guitarman700 said, and I agree with it, that it is a CASE BY CASE BASIS.

No it doesn't mean it happens automatically, I've never suggested it does. I don't think anyone else has either but you seem to be reading it in everyone's posts.

Sure, and what's wrong with that as opposed to someone that has to work extremely hard to get a scholarship to Harvard? The hard work part?

Nothing. But that person obviously has to work much, much harder to manage to get that place, whereas some others simply don't have to bother. That's the point, it's more easily available to some than others. Which flies in the face of your meritocratic claims, the same efforts and ability should garner the same results, but they don't, not nearly.

And that's just education, I used it as an easy example. The biggest problem preventing meritocracy in any society is nepotism, obviously. You've far more chance of success in business, for example, if your dad is mates with loads of CEOs.

The idea that the income of a person's parents affects their ability to get an education has always felt a little odd to me. I know it can, certainly.

Yes, it can. That's the only point being made.

 

[orb451]

No it doesn't mean it happens automatically, I've never suggested it does. I don't think anyone else has either but you seem to be reading it in everyone's posts.

Point taken, it sounded to me like you and others were definitely saying that wealth = free ride in the majority of instances. All I was countering with was that for some it is, and others it isn't.

Nothing. But that person obviously has to work much, much harder to manage to get that place, whereas some others simply don't have to bother. That's the point, it's more easily available to some than others. Which flies in the face of your meritocratic claims, the same efforts and ability should garner the same results, but they don't, not nearly.

How does that fly in the face, in a meritocracy people have the ability to succeed based on their merits, just because some are able to succeed with less effort than others doesn't mean the system is broken. I think that's where I'm confused, are you saying that because some people have to work harder than others, that they're still not succeeding based on their own work?

And that's just education, I used it as an easy example. The biggest problem preventing meritocracy in any society is nepotism, obviously. You've far more chance of success in business, for example, if your dad is mates with loads of CEOs.

Well yeah, if you want to throw in almost any other issues in business or life in general you're going to run into issues. I don't think any are exclusive to or limited to succeeding based on the merits of your work, or meritocracy. How about unions, look at them for examples of the pure antithesis of meritocracy. No thanks.

 

[chronocide]

How does that fly in the face, in a meritocracy people have the ability to succeed based on their merits, just because some are able to succeed with less effort than others doesn't mean the system is broken. I think that's where I'm confused, are you saying that because some people have to work harder than others, that they're still not succeeding based on their own work?

That is what I'm saying, yes. A meritocracy is a system in which success matches ability, the best at any particular thing being the most rewarded, not simply a system in which hard work and ability garners results.

How about unions, look at them for examples of the pure antithesis of meritocracy. No thanks.

Unions are a brilliant, brilliant thing. If they get too powerful they become problematic, like in the 70's in the UK, but generally a group of peers pooling resources and efforts to try and make work fairer for them, fight unfair or unsafe practices and to push for their rights and wages together is great. Obviously, as someone on the right, you'll disagree and see them as pesky proles getting above themselves and limiting the profits of their employers.

 

[orb451]

That is what I'm saying, yes. A meritocracy is a system in which success matches ability, the best at any particular thing being the most rewarded, not simply a system in which hard work and ability garners results.

Success never matches ability one to one in every case. Even I know that. And freely admit it. I did so in previous posts when I said that some people *don't* have to work as hard (Rich or otherwise) to succeed. But those that do work hard, are usually rewarded for their efforts. Generally speaking.

Surely you must know that too? I guess my definition of meritocracy "a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced" per the 2nd definition on dictionary.com gels with what I'm thinking about.

Unions are a brilliant, brilliant thing. If they get too powerful they become problematic, like in the 70's in the UK, but generally a group of peers pooling resources to try and make work fairer for them and to push for their rights and wages together is great. Obviously, as someone on the right, you'll disagree and see them as pesky proles getting above themselves and limiting the profits of their employers.

Unions are relics from a day and age when corporations were treating their workers extremely poorly. That's my opinion of them. Not that they're "pesky proles" in the way of profits, but that's cute of you to think that.

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

Yes, it can. That's the only point being made.

I suppose the point I was dancing around is that it can, but it needn't.

 

[chronocide]

Success never matches ability one to one in every case. Even I know that. And freely admit it. I did so in previous posts when I said that some people *don't* have to work as hard (Rich or otherwise) to succeed. But those that do work hard, are usually rewarded for their efforts. Generally speaking.

Surely you must know that too? I guess my definition of meritocracy "a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced" per the 2nd definition on dictionary.com gels with what I'm thinking about.

Certainly I do. But anything wanting to call itself a meritocracy should be leaning towards the greatest rewards for those of most ability. Which absolutely isn't the case in any nation I'm aware of. Hard work pays, no doubt, but the hard work of a poor-born genius is far less likely to bring great success than the lax effort of a millionaire.

And anything wanting to call itself a meritocracy really, really should have free education. It was UK's worst post-colonial day when they started charging for university in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

[Mexi]

Tell me, what psychological problems are associated with poverty? The inability to pay their bills? The inability to find a decent job? The inability to increase their skill set? The inability to use birth control (or in extreme cases abortion) to curtail their growing families? The inability to focus their time and effort on productive outlets?

I mean moreso for the children who grow up in poverty, who consistently score poorer academically, and often suffer from more anxiety/stress-related issues than kids middle/higher income brackets, as my experience lends itself moreso in looking at the impact on kids by poverty. not sure why you had to throw in the bit about birth control, which (to me) suggests that because they poor, they lack the sense than to keep having kids they can't afford to have.

You'll have to forgive me, I grew up around poor, low-income housing families. I grew up in a blue-collar, working class town outside of Boston. I moved to LA and have seen through my experiences over the years the good and bad in poor people, not all poor people, just the ones I've encountered, known or been friends with. I wouldn't say I have *more* experience with them than you. Only that my experience differs.

I will give you that, which is why I'm speaking only from my experience in the situation in a smaller-sized (300k) city in southwestern Ontario. It's entirely likely that my experience differs so greatly than yours that it would seem that the issue of solving poverty is not so cut and dry, especially given the breadth of experiences. I just haven't met as many families that spend their cheques on Xboxes and trips to vegas as they do on baby formula and bus tickets.

What I struggle with is things like our state (California for me) paying 61 million dollars in EBT benefits for families to spend it in Vegas casinos and vacations in Hawaii. Give me a bit, I'm at work but I'll dig up the article as a reference as soon as I can. But when I see things like that, spread across what is undoubtedly more than a *few* low income or "poor" people, I get frustrated. I also find it dismaying that our state is willing to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) on market research just to come up with a new "branding" campaign for EBT because of the "stigma" attached with food stamps.

This is my gripe as well, you can't just hand these people money and *hope* they'll spend it on whatever you're saying they should. which is why I'd be more inclined for low-income families to receive these services with considerable strings attached. while I don't care what someone does with their own money, when it comes to taxpayer dollars, I want to know where its going and hope that its being spent properly.

I guess that's my issue, I think the standards *are* achievable but they require more effort than you are probably willing to admit, or more effort than they themselves are willing to put forth. I have no empathy for people that want things handed to them easily. If it were impossible for people to "break free" of the cycle, no one would. There would be *no* rags to riches success stories. And yet there are, many, from every type of person and every area of the country, where people succeed despite what you call the lack of "fair" opportunities.

I'm not saying I want things to be easy, because if anything, my experience with having worked with low-income families shows me just how difficult they're used to their lives being. and yes there are "rags to riches" stories, so it is entirely possible for those that put in the work to succeed in life.
However, for most living in poverty, despite all the hard work they put in, lack of access to social programs to stabilize their finances or even more basic access to affordable transportation, will continue to hinder any sort of meaningful progress for that strata of our society. I wonder if there are certain factors that contribute to poverty that is endemic to specific areas of certain cities, whether cultural or otherwise that could play a role in all that

I can almost agree with the whole teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime thing, my only concern is the willingness of those being given a hand "up" to act accordingly and not waste the opportunity.

that is my main concern as well, which is why I'm always disappointed to see people squander opportunities they've been presented in life because making that jump was either too "hard" or otherwise. So if my money is being put into giving them opportunities, they need to fulfill their responsibilities to that end.

So you're complaining about a sweeping generalization whilst using one yourself? Priceless. I'm not saying *all* poor people are this, that or the other thing. It's not helpful to have any kind of Left/Right conversation on here without the terms Liberal/Lefty and Conservative/Right-Winger being thrown around and abused. And yet it still happens. My take on it is, oh fucking well. Life goes on.

yeah I read that back and realized that I came off a tad hypocritical, my bad. but while you don't implicitly say *all* poor people are like that, your comments suggest that it's almost entirely their fault. But again, I think because of our largely differing experiences, we probably won't agree on a single point other than the desperate need to cut the waste that is going into these programs and to hold people accountable for their mistakes. fortunately, we have the civility and maturity to agree to disagree on most of these points.

 

[daemon barbeque]

A hard-working poor guy climebed to the top is mostly a touching, inspiring and exiting story, just because it is rare! The system do not allow to reach what you want withoput the payment. Either you have money and you can reach it easily, or you are poor and have to go though Hell to reach it.
One can have parties, best toys, best teachers, best food, best water and can climb to the top slowly with a normal to very good life.
The other one has to works his ass of half of his life to reach the point the other was born with already.
IMHO, this has to compensated. I want everyone to have the opportunity to get the best education and job chances independently from family income and social network. This is not the case in the U.S. The scholarships are limited, and not everyone can even finsih the school because of bad neighborhood.

 

[orb451]

Certainly I do. But anything wanting to call itself a meritocracy should be leaning towards the greatest rewards for those of most ability. Which absolutely isn't the case in any nation I'm aware of. Hard work pays, no doubt, but the hard work of a poor-born genius is far less likely to bring great success than the lax effort of a millionaire.

And how long will the lax millionaire going to sustain his wealth if he's lazy and stupid? And how do you explain the success stories for the poor born geniuses that *have* made it? Or rather, achieved some level of success?

 

[SirMyghin]

Unions are a brilliant, brilliant thing. If they get too powerful they become problematic, like in the 70's in the UK, but generally a group of peers pooling resources and efforts to try and make work fairer for them, fight unfair or unsafe practices and to push for their rights and wages together is great. Obviously, as someone on the right, you'll disagree and see them as pesky proles getting above themselves and limiting the profits of their employers.

Unions, this day and age are absolutely absurd. I'll use a very recent example from Canada, the postal strike. A crown organization with indefinite job security and a slew of benefits. Their retirement packages were getting slightly pruned, and starting wages were getting dropped 2$ an hour, due to declining business in the postal world (couriers and such are taking a bigger portion, and lettermail is virtually non existant.

Now these postal workers start at 19$ an hour, and most make 24$ an hour. Seriously, a non-skill job, and they are making that. It is absurd really, they certainly don't earn it. Yet dropping starting wage to 17 (I think) was a huge issue. There were comments going around like 'we just want to make enough to support our families' and such. If you can't support a family on that, you are obviously trying to live outside your means. My wife, with a university education in psychology, in a councilling job a fair deal makes less than that, and we get by comfortably on her income alone. The difference in pay could easily make up for a child. The thing is, regardless of business profit, unions exercise entitlement in place of logic to attempt to bully employers to do what they will. That is all it is nowadays, most often there are all kinds of ludicrous dictations on how the business must work put in place by unions, and frankly, they have no business in that portion.

 

[daemon barbeque]

And how long will the lax millionaire going to sustain his wealth if he's lazy and stupid? And how do you explain the success stories for the poor born geniuses that *have* made it? Or rather, achieved some level of success?

Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. Having 2 things in common.(Except being women)
What are they?

 

[orb451]

I mean moreso for the children who grow up in poverty, who consistently score poorer academically, and often suffer from more anxiety/stress-related issues than kids middle/higher income brackets, as my experience lends itself moreso in looking at the impact on kids by poverty. not sure why you had to throw in the bit about birth control, which (to me) suggests that because they poor, they lack the sense than to keep having kids they can't afford to have.

Well again, from my experiences, that last bit is exactly what I've seen. My wife is a social worker and from her experiences and mine, the poor Latino families she deals with in LA are having kids like jack rabbits. And yes, they clearly lack the sense to refrain from fucking or wearing a rubber or terminating the pregnancy for a number of reasons, none of them right, which leaves them, and the kids, assed out in the cold. And it goes back to common sense and choices absolutely. If you don't have enough money to support yourself, let alone one or two mouths to feed, why the christ would you think it's OK to have *more* kids?

And the answer is lack of common sense and the other is gaming the system. Many will do it because the system is geared in such a way as to make it easier for larger families to score larger benefits. That needs to change.

Purposely leaving out the other bits from your post because I more or less agree with them or get what you're saying.

 

[orb451]

The system do not allow to reach what you want withoput the payment. Either you have money and you can reach it easily, or you are poor and have to go though Hell to reach it.

That's the same black/white logic that I and others get accused of on here. It's not so cut and dry. Yes it requires effort, no doubt about it. One man's hell is nothing in comparison to another's plight. So what? The playing field should be leveled in order to accommodate the lives of all? Sorry I don't agree with that.

One can have parties, best toys, best teachers, best food, best water and can climb to the top slowly with a normal to very good life.
The other one has to works his ass of half of his life to reach the point the other was born with already.

Precisely. Where is outlined that life has to be *fair* for everyone? I never said that it's fair. Not sure where you're getting that idea from, whether its me or just your own opinion.

IMHO, this has to compensated. I want everyone to have the opportunity to get the best education and job chances independently from family income and social network. This is not the case in the U.S. The scholarships are limited, and not everyone can even finsih the school because of bad neighborhood.

Guess we just disagree, I want the most talented people to rise to the top and succeed on their own hard work, in their own way. Is it great that some get to that top so easily? No, not to me, but I'm not going to bitch and complain about it.