Jump to content
Pebbles Bagley

When Did it Become Acceptable to Bring Politic of Hate into SL?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:
8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Or....do they see it and just not care?  Do they feel the poor deserve it?

There's your answer. As long as they aren't personally suffering, to hell with everyone else. 

Well I had a little bit of luck with a Republican once, so maybe I have some misguided hope this could happen again   :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Well I had a little bit of luck with a Republican once, so maybe I have some misguided hope this could happen again   :(

This is a difference between Republicans and Trumpers, though the difference is getting smaller every day that the decent Republicans don't do everything in their power to get rid of Trump. 

Or maybe he's just given them all permission to be as awful as they want to be. McConnell has always been a miserable human being, but now he's miserable AND evil. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Sort of controversial - If god exists, he's really an a-hole. As an omnipotent being, he's really lousy about saving people, especially small children, from suffering.

What if you just think of the Universe in general instead of a personal or separate kind of god? Are you angry with how the Universe is structured in general because there is suffering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

This is a difference between Republicans and Trumpers, though the difference is getting smaller every day that the decent Republicans don't do everything in their power to get rid of Trump. 

Or maybe he's just given them all permission to be as awful as they want to be. McConnell has always been a miserable human being, but now he's miserable AND evil. 

Most everyone I know is horrified by what they're seeing in this regard.  They're like some creepy cult now..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

... the poor and disadvantaged will suffer greatly if the policies favored by Trump are increasingly enacted?  If so, how did he respond?

 

I understand the desire to want to help without having the time or resources to actually GO and help people ... this is one major reason for taxes of course.

I am not trying to be harsh. These are generalized statements, but I think this is where some of this is coming from.

What about those who take advantage of the system to the detriment of those who really need it? What about those that wish to be fed and kept warm while continuing to overindulge  in the pleasures that made them homeless in the first place? Does it help to allow them to continue + be comfortable? Wouldn't it help more if they felt the sting of hunger and the bitterness of the cold when they fail to control themselves?

Didn't it help families who really needed help to get vouchers that were in-turn  "embarrassing" at the grocery store? Didn't that help motivate them to get off of assistance as quickly as possible?

From experience I know that getting on food stamps was much easier than getting off of them (paperwork and phone calls.)

What about those that run these programs (politicians, non-profits) and give themselves hefty salaries because "We deserve it for all the good we do." As the actual job of helping people is fundamentally an easy one, shouldn't they get paid much less and those that need help should be getting that much more?

Won't these systems break down eventually at this rate? If everyone were on assistance wouldn't it just turn into the same money system we have now except to trade power instead of money?

IMO I would be content with a utopia where we all work for the common good, where the needs of life are provided automatically and we have free time to do as we please. I would love to take my skills and be allowed to build things that solve problems while not worrying about paychecks, invoices and mortgages. I just don't think we are there. We aren't ready for it. At all. Humans as they are today will take advantage of these systems to the point that they can no longer help the people who they were intended to help.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

What if you just think of the Universe in general instead of a personal or separate kind of god? Are you angry with how the Universe is structured in general because there is suffering?

A few years back I was researching on eastern Buddhism and just looking through some quotes..

This one always stuck with me and always makes me think, kind of like the ones about impermanence do..I just thought,wow ,very interesting..

 

“A student, filled with emotion and crying, implored, "Why is there so much suffering?"

The Teacher replied, "No reason.”

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

What about those who take advantage of the system to the detriment of those who really need it? What about those that wish to be fed and kept warm while continuing to overindulge  in the pleasures that made them homeless in the first place? Does it help to allow them to continue + be comfortable? Wouldn't it help more if they felt the sting of hunger and the bitterness of the cold when they fail to control themselves?

The fact that some would or are able to take advantage of welfare is no reason not to provide help for those who need it.

Those who are homeless are not people who "overindulge in the pleasures that made them homeless", nor is it about "controlling themselves".  Typically they just lost their effing job, had a husband who ran off and left them with the kids, had such a bad childhood that they have more difficulty coping than the average person, or have chemical imbalances of the brain that make coping difficult.

25 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

Didn't it help families who really needed help to get vouchers that were in-turn  "embarrassing" at the grocery store? Didn't that help motivate them to get off of assistance as quickly as possible?

We don't need to shame people who need help -- that is barbaric

25 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

From experience I know that getting on food stamps was much easier than getting off of them (paperwork and phone calls.)

And? What is it you want starving people to do in order to get food stamps? Suffer a bit more...or?

25 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

What about those that run these programs (politicians, non-profits) and give themselves hefty salaries because "We deserve it for all the good we do." As the actual job of helping people is fundamentally an easy one, shouldn't they get paid much less and those that need help should be getting that much more?

Hefty salaries?  Most in the helping professions earn very little.   And "helping people is fundamentally an easy job"?   I'll have to tell that to my Social Worker friend who is out in the field tending to the homeless, freezing and likely to be attacked, how easy her job is.

25 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

Won't these systems break down eventually at this rate? If everyone were on assistance wouldn't it just turn into the same money system we have now except to trade power instead of money?

Who said anything about EVERYbody getting on assistance?  It's very difficult to be approved for SSI or SSDI.  These programs are for people that NEED THE HELP.

25 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

IMO I would be content with a utopia where we all work for the common good, where the needs of life are provided automatically and we have free time to do as we please. I would love to take my skills and be allowed to build things that solve problems while not worrying about paychecks, invoices and mortgages. I just don't think we are there. We aren't ready for it. At all. Humans as they are today will take advantage of these systems to the point that they can no longer help the people who they were intended to help.

Why do you keep talking about people who want to take advantage of these systems? They typically can't, even though you will read about a few who are able to (and advertised ad infinitum, usually in Republican publications).  Like I said, it's damm hard to get assistance.  Most people wouldn't get assistance even if they could, as it's hard to live on 700 plus a month (usd) in the US via SSI, and they watch you like a hawk to make sure you aren't working on the side.

*** I know you're playing devil's advocate a bit, but just entertaining the thoughts you expressed is pissing me off...lol

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

What about those who take advantage of the system to the detriment of those who really need it?

I would rather those taking advantage be able to keep taking advantage than to have one single person go hungry, or homeless. Especially children.

18 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

Does it help to allow them to continue + be comfortable? Wouldn't it help more if they felt the sting of hunger and the bitterness of the cold when they fail to control themselves?

Well, sure, if you want them to turn to crime as a way to feed and clothe and house themselves. Desperate people take desperate measures.

19 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

Didn't it help families who really needed help to get vouchers that were in-turn  "embarrassing" at the grocery store? Didn't that help motivate them to get off of assistance as quickly as possible?

Needing assistance shouldn't be embarrassing, and anyone who shames a person for needing assistance is a terrible failure at being a decent human being. 

7 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

What about those that run these programs (politicians, non-profits) and give themselves hefty salaries because "We deserve it for all the good we do." As the actual job of helping people is fundamentally an easy one, shouldn't they get paid much less and those that need help should be getting that much more?

And now you're in my wheelhouse, since I'm a fundraiser (professional beggar) for a nonprofit. 

Why the hell should I get paid much less? I still have to have the same level of education, at the same cost, as my counterparts in the corporate world. I don't get discounts on my rent, or my electric bill, or my car payment, or my groceries, or my clothing, or anything else because I work for a nonprofit. No one running a LEGITIMATE nonprofit is giving themselves a "hefty salary". 

In general, we're making about the same as our counterparts in the corporate world, until you get to the CEOs and executives. Those guys (in the nonprofit world) are making around $120,000 on average, and that's a good 25% less than their counterparts are making. 

It's time for me to pull out my very favorite Ted Talk!

The Way We Think About Charity is Dead Wrong

I implore you to take 20 minutes to watch that. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:
38 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Or....do they see it and just not care?  Do they feel the poor deserve it?

There's your answer. As long as they aren't personally suffering, to hell with everyone else. 

Sadly, I think that is a lot of it. 

It reminds me of several Republicans who people applaud as being "open minded" about gay marriage/rights ONLY AFTER they find out one of their kids is gay. Up until then it was OK to hate and discriminate. After the reveal, they are somehow lauded as enlightened. ??? (Cheney, Highland, among others come to mind.)

On the other hand, and there is always another hand... What you said does NOT explain the people like the ones in SE Kentucky in the coal areas, who vote Republican and yet are the ones living in poverty and the most hurt by the Republican platforms. Go figger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

What if you just think of the Universe in general instead of a personal or separate kind of god? Are you angry with how the Universe is structured in general because there is suffering?

No, because I don't think anything is connected in the way I think you're talking about. Cancer is cancer and it's its own thing. An abusive person is an abusive person. Yes, there may be contributing factors, and the cycle of abuse is a very real thing, but on the deepest level, a person makes their own decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

Political Scientists will tell you that people on the left and right actually agree on 80% of things when you 'remove rhetoric / political framing' and just preset the issues neutrally. Good odds the 20% is NOT the things we argue about all the time, but other random things we'd not think of much.

Politicians have a vested interest in keeping us all fighting... So they use framing, fear and hope both, create false victims and fake heroes - and get us fighting to keep themselves in power.

That's something even Socrates could have told you... it's that old... divide people up, point them at a target, and blame that target for the failures in society that empower you.

Yep. The old divide and conquer.

United we stand, divided we fall.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:
33 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

What if you just think of the Universe in general instead of a personal or separate kind of god? Are you angry with how the Universe is structured in general because there is suffering?

No, because I don't think anything is connected in the way I think you're talking about. Cancer is cancer and it's its own thing. An abusive person is an abusive person. Yes, there may be contributing factors, and the cycle of abuse is a very real thing, but on the deepest level, a person makes their own decisions. 

I think I see, so you would only be angry if you believed as some do, that there is a separate part of the universe with agency (god) who chooses not to do anything about the suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:
45 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:
50 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Or....do they see it and just not care?  Do they feel the poor deserve it?

There's your answer. As long as they aren't personally suffering, to hell with everyone else. 

Sadly, I think that is a lot of it. 

It reminds me of several Republicans who people applaud as being "open minded" about gay marriage/rights ONLY AFTER they find out one of their kids is gay. Up until then it was OK to hate and discriminate. After the reveal, they are somehow lauded as enlightened. ??? (Cheney, Highland, among others come to mind.)

I remember some studies demonstrating that Republicans, on average, score lower in behaviors denoting 'empathy'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Mary was a prostitute and Jesus's papa was a Roman soldier.

This is the only part I don't agree with. It's more likely that Joseph of Arimathea was his father but couldn't marry Mary or acknowledge his illegitimate son. Was it coincidence that the man who did marry her happened to also be named Joseph? Probably not. Why else would JoA assume responsibility for the burial? Think about that one for a while. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

Sadly, I think that is a lot of it. 

It reminds me of several Republicans who people applaud as being "open minded" about gay marriage/rights ONLY AFTER they find out one of their kids is gay. Up until then it was OK to hate and discriminate. After the reveal, they are somehow lauded as enlightened. ??? (Cheney, Highland, among others come to mind.)

On the other hand, and there is always another hand... What you said does NOT explain the people like the ones in SE Kentucky in the coal areas, who vote Republican and yet are the ones living in poverty and the most hurt by the Republican platforms. Go figger.

Heh... I grew up in south central Kentucky. 

No, those people who vote Republican aren't evil. They are wonderful, simple-minded people who believe what they are told by the men in suits who come through town once every 4-6 years and tell them that the Democrats are coming to take their jobs away and give them to brown people, take away all their guns, and then force them to murder unborn babies. 

Here's a prime example of that sort of thing actually happening in Kentucky. Under Governor Steve Beshear (a Democrat), we built the gold standard affordable care act web portal and insured something like 600,000 Kentuckians that previously had no insurance. Notice my use of "affordable care act" because Gov. Beshear was very careful to not call it Obamacare because he knew that the Republicans had turned that into something to be terrified of because ZOMGSOCIALISM!!!

Fast forward a few years and it's time to elect a new governor. Enter professional carpetbagger Matt Bevin who ran pretty much his entire campaign around getting rid of Obamacare. Yes, he got elected. And one of the first things he did was dismantle that gold-standard website and make it harder than hell to access the ACA. 

Those 600,000 lost their insurance and they were stunned. What?? Obamacare and the ACA are THE SAME THING???

They legit had no idea. The republicans convinced them to be terrified of a benefit they were actually using that was helping them in tremendous ways. That should be illegal, but it isn't. If there is a heaven and hell, I know where Matt Bevin is going

Oh, and Matt Bevin also just lost reelection to Steve Beshear's son, Andy, and it was a glorious day in Kentucky. But don't get me started of the spite-pardons Bevin issued on his way out the door. 

Now if we can just get rid of McConnell and the curly-headed joke that is Rand Paul. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

From experience I know that getting on food stamps was much easier than getting off of them (paperwork and phone calls.)

Not true in Oregon. It's the exact opposite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

It's time for me to pull out my very favorite Ted Talk!

So nonprofits want to be for-profit with benefits? I am confused. Why not do the work to move the business into the for-profit sector?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

IMO I would be content with a utopia where we all work for the common good, where the needs of life are provided automatically and we have free time to do as we please. I would love to take my skills and be allowed to build things that solve problems while not worrying about paychecks, invoices and mortgages. I just don't think we are there. We aren't ready for it. At all. Humans as they are today will take advantage of these systems to the point that they can no longer help the people who they were intended to help.

We were like that once. Before someone invented money and greed became the norm.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Selene Gregoire said:

We were like that once. Before someone invented money and greed became the norm.

Before we had any of our modernness.

Sometimes I entertain that idea. I don't think I'd like it, but I entertain it. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

Why not do the work to move the business into the for-profit sector?

Because in order to solicit donations that people can claim as tax deductible, an organization has to be a tax-exempt nonprofit. 

Nonprofit doesn't mean that the organization isn't trying to make a profit. It means that our primary reason for existing isn't to make a profit, but to work towards a common good. If we are lucky enough to make a profit, those profits are put back into our programs to help us expand our services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Because in order to solicit donations that people can claim as tax deductible, an organization has to be a tax-exempt nonprofit. 

Nonprofit doesn't mean that the organization isn't trying to make a profit. It means that our primary reason for existing isn't to make a profit, but to work towards a common good. If we are lucky enough to make a profit, those profits are put back into our programs to help us expand our services.

Couldn't more profit be squeezed out to expand services if the team weren't making as much money? I would work for less money at a non-profit if I believed in the cause. This is how I always considered them to be.

Not to mention the opportunity for the experience and the ability to do more things than you generally do in a profit environment.

Edited by Evah Baxton
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

Before we had any of our modernness.

Sometimes I entertain that idea. I don't think I'd like it, but I entertain it. 😁

But you just said you wanted to work for your food (hunting and gathering or growing crops), shelter, and clothing. Where all worked for the good of the community. What do you think First Nations people have been doing for the past 40,000 or so years on the North American continent? It is still happening today. Humans are ready for it. They're beyond ready for it because we have already been there and some of us are still there. People just don't want to give up their planet-and-all-life-forms-killing ways because they think life would be too hard then. Life is hard. You either deal with it or die from it.

Edited by Selene Gregoire
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Heh... I grew up in south central Kentucky. 

:::stuff:::

Here's a prime example of that sort of thing actually happening in Kentucky. Under Governor Steve Beshear (a Democrat), we built the gold standard affordable care act web portal and insured something like 600,000 Kentuckians that previously had no insurance. Notice my use of "affordable care act" because Gov. Beshear was very careful to not call it Obamacare because he knew that the Republicans had turned that into something to be terrified of because ZOMGSOCIALISM!!!

Fast forward a few years and it's time to elect a new governor. Enter professional carpetbagger Matt Bevin who ran pretty much his entire campaign around getting rid of Obamacare. Yes, he got elected. And one of the first things he did was dismantle that gold-standard website and make it harder than hell to access the ACA. 

Those 600,000 lost their insurance and they were stunned. What?? Obamacare and the ACA are THE SAME THING???

:::stuff:::

 

I lived in SE KY for a while, not far from where the Dukes of Hazard were supposed to be. During that high point of my life [sarcasm font] I was the friendly voice of the ACA's National Marketplace--the first year, when nothing worked, ever. Woot! I know extremely well what you are talking about, and it was sad/scary/maddening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

Couldn't more profit be squeezed out to expand services if the team weren't making as much money? I would work for less money at a non-profit if I believed in the cause. This is how I always considered them to be.

I believe in my nonprofit. I believe in our mission and our cause. I believe in the work we do. I've been here doing it for almost 14 years.

I still have bills to pay. 

I do work for less money than I made when I was in the for-profit world. 

I still have bills to pay. 

Inflation is a thing. Prices go up. 

I have no choice but to pay those prices. 

The children that receive our services deserve the very best. The VERY BEST. That includes staff. Our staff includes doctors and nurses and psychologists and an entire fleet of employees that have the same student loan debt everyone else has often with advanced degrees. If we paid them significantly less, they could not work for us no matter how much they believe in the cause. 

They have bills to pay. 

We don't get discounts. There is no little magic card in our wallets to flash at employees in stores that gives us some sort of magical do-gooder discount. My credit card company could not care less about what kind of work I do when it comes time to pay the bill. My rental office actually donates to my nonprofit, but I don't get discounted rent. I've yet to find a gas station that will just let me fill my tank without wanting me to pay the same price everyone else does. I've never gone in the grocery store, loaded a cart, and just wheeled it out the door while telling the cashier, "It's cool... I work for a nonprofit."

TL:DR If you pay nonprofit employees less, they will go to work someplace else because they, too, have responsibilities, debt, and bills just like everyone else. Services and programs would not expand if there were no employees to run those services.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

But you just said you wanted to work for your food (hunting and gathering or growing crops), shelter, and clothing. Where all worked for the good of the community. What do you think First Nations people have been doing for the past 40,000 or so years on the North American continent? It is still happening today. Humans are ready for it. They're beyond ready for it because we have already been there and some of us are still there. People just don't want to give up their planet-and-all-life-forms-killing ways\ because they think life would be too hard then. Life is hard. You either deal with it or die from it.

My skills are not in farming. My skills are closer to building automated farm equipment. Maybe we would have to go all the way back. I like to think that we could have both. Somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...