Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,184
    Country:
    Laos
    Look (pause ;) )... it is not

    and to be very frank about this, this argument is the key to both our ideologies.

    Because while you are arguing, that this is mainly because of a decline based in 'ethics' or 'family values' - I'm saying, make your argument for what ever small percentage of 'badly behaved' single mothers on welfare you can find -- but the reason why we got welfare is because of a bigger change than that.

    Regardless of if your father figure of choice always told you, that people 'should just get jobs', and the issue for 'anti social behavior' was inpropper family values - because I can see that, thats a 'logic' system in its own. But its not 'why we got welfare, and it also isnt what will break wellfare ('abuse of that'). Maybe there is a percentage of abusers in young women mothers, but you are missing the entire bigger point.
    --

    Now let me move forward a little in my argument. :)

    If declining family structures are a consequence of declining wages (both parents have to work now). And if declining wages are a consequence of globalization (globalized supply chains).

    Answer me this riddle - why is every Magahead being sold cheap merchandise made in china, while Trump makes free trade agreements with india and south east asia?

    Thats by definition, making families worse off in america - for accumulation of personal wealth.

    Now there are several ways to argue for that. Maybe the first one - we need to. Our 'organisation' needs funds, to be able to act politically, to be able to make all better, .. etc...

    But there is also another way to see this.

    You tap in into peoples emotions on how to get the 'better life back - when families meant something'. You have no clue how to do it. You funnel in donations via the gift of the gab, and then you sell out to financial interests that gladly take whatever gifts you give them, but do nothing at all to change globalization (maybe change partners around a little). You get rich in the process - everyone gets shafted - EXCEPT, the people that were with you early on, because drive to power, the first ones being able to sell a new ideology always get more than the rest of the movement.

    But the issue still remains, you have no idea how to solve the thing that actually caused your followers to become mad.

    You then say, its because of the people abusing welfare, or because of those foreigners, or because of a lack of family values - but it isnt, isnt it?

    Its because today both parents have to work, for a family to make a decent living. (Except if you are rich. :) )

    If you get that - it should somewhat break your believe system.. ;) So start small, one step at a time. Try to find the logic error in my argument.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 4, 2020
  2. UltraDolphinRevolution

    UltraDolphinRevolution GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Messages:
    789
    Country:
    China
    Do you mistake me for somebody else? I never claimed that we got welfare because of a decline in family values.

    Again, I never argued against these points.
    The American elites have ruined the middle class (see COVID19 treatment of small businesses as the latest example) for a largely fictional booming stock market. Chinese people work hard and for a salary Americans would not want to work. In exchange, the American lower classes are kept from rioting by being able to afford cheap products from overseas. It is a weird symbiotic relationship but it´s a different topic.


    Who is this "you" in this paragraph? I don´t understand. Please explain.



    It doesn´t break my believe system because I never argued against this point. Yes, globalization has increased the pressure on workers in the developed world. In Asian American communities women also usually work but it hasn´t let to disasters like 70% single-motherhood. They tend to study harder, stay in school longer, start relationships later, have less single mothers etc.
    If welfare is high and the income of the potential husband is low, there is more incentive for both father and mother to be responsible.

    May I come back to the Hardvard question? Why are you against discrimination of Asians (who need higher scores) even though it is in line with making communities more equal.
     
  3. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,184
    Country:
    Laos
    Are you now playing with me? Thats my argument. Family values couldnt be held up to the extent they served a social function before, thats why we had to increase (reliance on) welfare.

    You are just saying all the time, that welfare kills family values, for no reason whatsoever. So I responded, that you probably are motivated by your parents parenting advice of 'people who cant get a job are lazy', and if you have family problems 'you tough them out and shut up (wife will stay)' and this would be your 'ideal society' that you'd want to return to - but cant.

    (As women got more financially independent, divorce rate went up.)
    Republican party strategists.
    Those to me seem all like factors of parenting that believes in 'their kids having it better than them one day' (first and second generation migrants, maybe also some kind of 'asian' ethics - I'm no too familiar with ("Tiger-mom" trope is my only point of reference here).

    While in towns (Detroit?) or parts of towns, where you see no growth and almost no upwards mobility over several generations, you cant solve this by telling people to parent better. Or reduce their welfare, and hope for the best.

    Reference would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lazarsfeld
    (Marienthal study.)

    I also dont think that race would be a deciding factor in parenting strategies...
    -

    You need to get some other references instead of 'our community' compaired to 'the other commuity' - by race.

    In Ethiopia they are on the verge of another war between their ethnic groups again (first time in years) https://www.google.com/search?q=Hundessa

    There it is Tigrayer vs. Oromo vs. Amhare which one of them has the better parenting strategy? ;) Same issue, its also a certain kind of racism there. Same color of skin though.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 4, 2020
  4. Pokemon_Tea_Sea_Jee

    Pokemon_Tea_Sea_Jee GBAtemp Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2020
    Messages:
    491
    Country:
    Canada
    I do not think that it has gone too far. Actually, as a matter of fact, it has not gone far enough.
     
    osaka35 likes this.
  5. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer
    Reporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    31,119
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Seems I am a bit late to the party to start quoting things. Some very odd statements and perceptions of the world appear to be being exhibited though.

    To answer the question of the title
    In an ideal world sense?
    Yes, no due process, no harms being rectified, discourse being stymied, comedy a troubled field...

    In a practical sense?
    No. Push it to the max and then some more.
    If I called you a jay would you care? Probably not, might not even have a clue. Now look up the history of the term jay walking, which is to say it was once a great insult but today most would probably think it some inside joke about a person known to the parties and their name being a byword or shared reference.
    As it stands people are increasingly not giving a shit about accusations of racism as it seems to be applied to everything, being accused of not being a feminist might actually be a positive these days, being called gay probably means you are being insulted by a 6 year old, in general people are once again demanding proof for things (believe all ninjas being shown to be absurd)...

    If people want to back off and become sensible and go back to nice principles then absolutely fantastic. If not then the only way out is not through but it is a path that will do it.
    In my case I figure I am fucked anyway (I could return to being a ghost on the internet, indeed I was for many years before I decided to join a forum, but that would take some effort and I do actually like sharing the results of my pulling things apart), be it for something I said (and might still hold to) or said and time/increasingly plumbing the depths of bizzaro logic will make me super king arsehole so in turn that leaves me free. I then have nothing to lose and you don't really want too many people with that kind of mindset (my lack of ambition/desire/passion tempers the dangers of that one for me, many do have such things though).
     
  6. UltraDolphinRevolution

    UltraDolphinRevolution GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Messages:
    789
    Country:
    China
    If you think about it, "cancel culture" is actually part of an ongoing 50-years-old cultural revolution.

    It could also be described as another Christian reformation: The doctrin of equality is brought back to center stage. Even though this new religion is somewhat atheistic (which btw was an accusation of the Romans about Christianity before Christianization), it has many elements of said religion. There are videos of people confessing their white privilege and asking for forgiveness, sitting or kneeling in large groups and repeating sentences, etc. Even the term hate speech is actually nothing more than a new word for heresy.
    Exciting times for future historians.
     
  7. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer
    Reporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    31,119
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Not so much for current ones though



    I should then stand in solidarity. Slavery is not the same thing as genocide, and I am not sure how anybody could look at the definitions and practices thereof and come to that conclusion, save maybe for those places that routinely castrate people and otherwise disallow breeding. I will also take the further radical step of saying I don't much care for either though and would rather neither happen again, or continue to happen if there is some ongoing one somewhere (modern day slavery is a thing and there have been various genocides over living memory).
     
  8. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,184
    Country:
    Laos
    On the public front - keeping the simple narrative, and congruence. If its just for 'style points' on part of the institution. If you would go into 'societal impact' (not sure if the institution would argue along those lines) question becomes more complicated, and I think (have a feeling), that I would switch sides (on the argument, as said before). But I'm not sure.

    For someone entering college to have to face 'discrimintation' on "but you have to think about the societal impact" grounds, I imagine to be all kinds of anger inducing. Especially if you then arent picked. Keep it simple.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 4, 2020
  9. FGFlann

    FGFlann GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2015
    Messages:
    637
    Country:
    I'm honestly surprised it took them this long to come for David Starkey as he's never been afraid to tell the screechers the truth. I suppose it's a testament to how hyper emotional everyone is right now.
     
    ChronoTrig likes this.
  10. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,184
    Country:
    Laos
    Especially that 'newscaster' in the video, that gets a facial orgasm, while reading what he interprets as dogwhistling he can forward to his audience. ;)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 4, 2020
  11. UltraDolphinRevolution

    UltraDolphinRevolution GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Messages:
    789
    Country:
    China
    Notimp, I don´t understand your answer.

    I asked you why you do not support things like Harvard´s race-based entry desicions (which contradicts your overall way of thinking because it actually helps African Americans).

    Let´s just agree to disagree... I guess.
     
  12. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,184
    Country:
    Laos
    And this is the second time you (purposefully) didnt unterstand an answer, or all of a sudden were proud to hold the position you always held, and blamed me for it.

    Also, if you dont understand something, you dont end with 'I guess we agree to disagree' unless you'd want to try to discredit the other persons position.

    As a result, we have two pages of postings here that do nothing but serve as padding after a debate, 'why racism taboos are not cancel culture gone too far', where you acted very interested in trains of thoughts - and then just dropped all of them mid argument.
    --

    I explained, why I'm against Harvards policy to have less slots for asian americans, relative to the scores they reach - bringing forward a public argument, that 'otherwise they'd have too many asians on the campus' to which you responded - "but why? Isnt that against your agenda to want to help black folks?"

    I even said, that should this measure turn out to be more than just superficial posturing, that Harvard promotes 'equality in race', and have actual implications on the societal level (I.e. what happens, if you prevent a proportional amount of students from each demographic to reach the highest education level), I would most likely swap my position, although I havent heard the argument for that yet, because nobody is making it.

    Harvard has limited slots each year. Do you optimize for 'the best possible quintile' or do you optimize for the best possible racially equal set?

    To which my response was, keep it simple, optimize for the best possible candidates, regardless of race, unless - in private you have a better argument for why maintaining roughly equal access for all races is a more important approach. Again, I havent heard that argument.

    But for instance - if your policy would mean (in an extreme), that you'd now statistically never get any black alumni working in economically depressed black communities anymore, or never a viable black candidate for the supreme court, I'd understand that you'd change the selection criteria.

    For the specific asian student that tries to get into Harvard in our case, this is structurally unfair, but we would then tell them - its needed societally. My point was - I'm not sure if you would want to bar people entry from a better higher education using that argument in public. I expect that it would trigger outrage. (Because its very unfair, and indeed - racist, when looked at it from an individual level.)

    Now that you understand my point - you can go back to ignoring all of them. ;)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 5, 2020
  13. UltraDolphinRevolution

    UltraDolphinRevolution GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Messages:
    789
    Country:
    China
    I always tried to understand your posts. But I had to read some paragraphs multiple times and still didn´t get it. I think if it is a two-person dialogue it is probably not interesting for others.

    So you acknowledge that university entries based on race are unfair. However, you would accept it in some cases and just not tell the public. Wow, that´s some elitist mentality right there.

    BTW it is not possible to purposefully not understand something. Either I do or I don´t.
    If there is anybody who is dishonest, it is you. I agreed that international pressure (through competition) has made it necessary for many married couples to have two (or 1.5) jobs.
    But you got outraged when I pointed out (or rather agreed with sb else) that welfare also adds to the destruction of the family if the state replaces the husband. Do you deny this effect?
     
  14. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,184
    Country:
    Laos
    No.

    Thats not what I would do. I just know, that such an argument could never be made as a public argument. And would be weird to make. And that currently noone is making it. But that Harvards public excuse for implementing 'progressive scoring' for asians is lame. (So my mind wonders into 'what if they...' territory.. ;) )

    So in case, there was a non public deliberation, I'd have to hear that first, before being able to make a decision.

    I acknowledged, that I could see reasons for why you would want to 'optimize' entry into a university not just for 'best of the best', but also for 'racially diverse, and then best'.

    Stop slandering my position. ;) I think it is fair.. ;)

    Also - you are not hiding the fact from the public (they still see the result, and currently even are suing against that practice), you just maybe arent giving the full explanation (/reasoning), small, but important difference. Also, none of that is real, as far as we know it. So I'm now a bad person for not always optimizing for 'highest test score' people, in theory, in a thought experiment (even with an added maybe)? ;)

    Sorry for attacking on the personal level as well, I thought our exchange was fair/good, lets not get into namecalling (like it always happens on the internet.. ;) ).
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 5, 2020
  15. UltraDolphinRevolution

    UltraDolphinRevolution GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Messages:
    789
    Country:
    China
    You say my way of thinking leads to tribalism (as if BLM is anything but tribalism) but you have a more tribal way of thinking than I.

    You are not bad but confused. This is not just a thought experiment. It actually affects people. You instinctively find it unfair but you still accept tribal demands (while at the same time denouncing tribalism).
     
  16. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,184
    Country:
    Laos
    I dont know, if that is Harvards reasoning (we do it to prevent societal problems), thats why I call it a thought experiment. Officially they are doing it, because cultural diversity is something you'd want to see on campus.

    Why I've said, that I could see valid reasons for doing it, has to do with me thinking, that alway optimizing societies for the maximum best outcome in a narrow field also produces drawbacks - and I wanted to see/hear/read those (if the societal argument for why its done actually exists) arguments first.

    In short - there is no human right to 'best possible education', and there is no natural right to 'people with the best test scores get picked by the best colleges'.

    If Harvard introduces other factors - people can sue under anti-discrimination laws, and they are doing so currently.

    But at some level 'doing the best societally' is not as simple as 'always let the best people excel'.

    (Lets get into how test scores represent different forms of intelligence ('book smarts', 'volume learning', ..) next.. ;) )
    -

    But I fully understand, that this is as sh*tty as can be from the individual perspective of someone that is forced into a progressive testing scheme, based on race - and then fails it, only because of race.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 5, 2020
  17. UltraDolphinRevolution

    UltraDolphinRevolution GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Messages:
    789
    Country:
    China
    Please tell me, you are of European descent. My goodness.
     
    Coto likes this.
  18. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,184
    Country:
    Laos
    I dont argue that way because I'm racist.

    And I'm sure Harvard doesnt either.

    I would argue the same, if it went against my race. Because I couldnt care less about my race (which means, yes I'm in the majority race bracket where I grew up).
     
  19. Coto

    Coto -
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,699
    Country:
    Chile
    It's OK. I fully agree with your thoughts. It's great for me right now to see Chinese people being aware of the big picture and how things are ongoing right now, you are not the only one, I have other chinese friends and they also are worried about this whole situation. Do not fall under the ignorance "liberal/rainbow/whatever" people love to try to shove out of their mouths anyway. If you said something they are pissed off probably you hit them with something they may find dangerous to their ideologies.

    Peace!
     
  20. UltraDolphinRevolution

    UltraDolphinRevolution GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Messages:
    789
    Country:
    China
    So are you "white"? If not, are you by any chance Christian?

    Your way of thinking is rare among Non-Christians and Non-Europeans.

    @Coto: I am not Chinese. I only live there. I was raised (as a minority) in Germany. But I agree with your judgement.
     
    Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution, Jul 5, 2020
    Coto likes this.
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - Culture, Cancel,

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.