HN user
I've been both sexually harassed at work and groped by strangers when out on the town (by a woman) - but yeah, I agree with your larger point. I think it's certainly more prevalent the other way around.
Do we? How do you draw that conclusion from the data? Personality disorders seem to be fairly resistant to treatment/therapy, and certainly more than 1% of the population has issues with mental health, yet they don’t seem to commit crimes at such an alarming rate.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I don’t think your conclusion is directly supported by this study.
Yeah, but given current exchange rates £70k is ~$100k. ~100k is nothing to sneeze at...
Not at all - I abhor racism, sexism, and homophobia. My point has more to do with our general indulgence in materialism, offensive and gaudy cultural products (such as music that is highly denigrating and much of TV), a general contempt for anything religious or sacred, and our habit of placing relatively minor issues on the pedestal, while doing little in the way of pursuing policy that would benefit most people.
No, but it's important that we control and police language and shove PC culture into your head at absolutely any opportunity and just grind and grind and grind away at any artifact of traditional culture.
Case in point - see the 900 post Tesla Falcon Heavy thread, where the majority of the discussion centered around a tangential point over gender expectations.
The deceleration in healthcare costs preceded the ACA, and can mostly be attributed to a slowdown in economic growth (1,2,3).
1 . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25092842 2. https://economics21.org/html/sorry-nyt-medicare-cost-problem... 3. https://economics21.org/html/obamacare-not-making-healthcare...
Maybe because it's a ridiculously vague and abstruse question that presupposes a set of ideas that libertarianism, or any political philosophy for that matter, never set out to directly answer?
Libertarianism is simply a political framework which we can use to see and interpret the world. It can be combined with other frameworks to help us reach even deeper levels of understand (or perhaps not).
The right-libertarian could argue that the best solution is a competitive marketplace that will fuel hyper-economic growth, and accelerate the rate at which we develop technologies that allow us to ween off of fossil fuels.
A left-libertarian, maybe someone with a strong civil libertarian persuasion, could argue that the non-aggression principle is being violated by the emissions of greenhouse gasses. They would then establish an "emissions rights" framework, and perhaps a marketplace to address the issue.
They're all paid for by taxes.
Thanks for the reminder; and to think that I've spent a lifetime just assuming that public infrastructure grew out of the ground, like grass.
Look, I said I wasn't trying to change the guy's mind or debate. This isn't anything new, we've discussed this about a million times and I'm sure we'll never agree on the proper role and scope of taxation. My statement was simply a counterpoint to the completely undefended and unqualified idea that "Eluding taxes is super-unethical."
And what country did they live.....
Ah yes, the cosmic effects that we must pay tribute to because we happened to be in the right place at the right time. If we're headed down that route, "America" deserves about as much credit as the invention of mathematics, or at the very least, the computer. Maybe we should thank Steve's mother. We can go down the line infinitely. The point is, people create, build, and make things, and it's those people that should be attributed and credited.
This is the success sequence stuff? Look it's just not very true. Almost the entirety of various 'success sequence' poverty figures can be explained by one thing: maintaining full-time work
This isn't true, and a random blog post where the author has difficulty replicating the studies results does not prove it so. There is a mile high pile of literature that shows marriage and high school graduation to be vitally important. It would not surprise me in the least that these two are strongly correlated with full-time employment. The "Success Sequence" has lifted more people from poverty than any social welfare program has to date.
Here is some compiled literature:
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/marri...
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/IFS-Millennial...
You didn't need a social scientist or sociologist to declare that class distinctions are natural and helpful. Why the trepidation on race?
I genuinely still have absolutely no idea what you are asking me to clarify, and I'm taking offense at your insinuation that I'm being coy about some matter regarding race. I will gladly answer your question, but what is it that you are asking or need clarification on? Are you asking me if racial distinctions are natural? Yes, race is hereditary, is this not self-evident?
Are many mobile in an effortful sense though?
I don't know what you mean by effortful, so the best I can answer you is to say that socially mobility is a very real and recognized phenomena in the United States of America.
This society would demonstrate perfect intergenerational mobility yet there would be no way to exert effort and change your circumstance
As far as I understand you, your underlying premise here is that social mobility is, like a dice roll, pure luck. I think this premise is completely baseless.
'luck' component to mobility? It's the same deal
It absolutely isn't the same deal. I don't doubt that race makes it more difficult for some people to succeed, but this is completely tangential and I'm finding it difficult to see what, if anything, this has to do with my original statement.
Eluding taxes is super-unethical.
Debatable - some of us hold taxation to be tantamount to theft, so we believe in the exact opposite. I'm not here to debate or change your mind though, just offering a perspective.
America made it possible for them to start a company like that....
What do you mean by "America" made it possible? Steve Jobs, Wozniak, and all the other people who worked there made it possible.
people gave the a shitload of money,
No one "gave" them money. They voluntarily purchased a product or service.
It doesn't matter if one is obliged by law to do something or not.
Yes it does.
I don't have to offer an old lady my seat on the bus, but what kind of piece of shit doesn't do that?
That...is a ridiculous analogy.
Now now relax.
We can have a sensible discussion without condescension.
You're in a thread about class and you're saying that class distinctions are good......You don't think those people who have experienced the bottom are going to have a reaction to that?
I've "experienced bottom" and I don't really find what I said to be inflammatory or offensive, if we're willing to be honest with ourselves, it's rather quite self-evident.
You make it sound so easy! But it's not, growing up in a poor community frequently means growing up in poor schools with poor opportunities, no mentors and rare role models.
I'm familiar with how "easy" or not it is - I've lived it. If you graduate high school and don't have a kid before you are married, you're pretty much guaranteed to enter the middle-class.
Would you say the same thing about racial distinctions? If not, why?
What exactly do you mean? Do I think that racially homogeneous societies exhibit more social order? I don't know, that to me sounds like a question for a social scientist or sociologist. I don't find it to be analogous to what we're talking about here though, as one cannot change their race, but many are socially mobile.
Move up to the next one?
Yes
Class mobility is a fallacy
This is patently false. Social mobility is entirely possible, although it has gotten harder since the 1980's, but that wasn't your claim.
that was invented to support the hierarchy
The hierarchy doesn't need "support". Class and social hierarchy has been observed in every culture since time immemorial. The radical and unfounded claim is the notion that we can "remove" it in any meaningful sense.
Its not an alternative system in any sense.
Moving into a new social class impacts your life in every conceivable way, from the way you speak, dress, behave, to the job you perform. On an individual level, it absolutely would resemble "systemic" changes to both one's material and immaterial life.
Class distinction and hierarchy are precisely the sort of social mechanisms that convince people that there exists alternatives to certain modes of living (class aspiration).
I've known many "low-class" wealthy people. Likewise, I've met some incredible snobby, "upper-class" people who were not very wealthy, mainly intellectuals and artists.
There is a moral failing in our country where the pursuit of money is seen as the objective optimal thing to do. But it's very reasonable to look at how money changes people, and to turn away from such a lifestyle in disgust.
It's also very easy and PC to venerate the poor out of some misguided sense of pity or moral absolutism.
One could look at poor communities, and, as you said "turn away from such a lifestyle in disgust" and choose enrich themselves.
I'm also not entirely, or even in the least bit, convinced that our society, institutions, social structures, and general well-being would be better off WITHOUT class distinctions. Going deeper, they seem to me to be an essential component of civilization, one of the many necessary "glues" of social order.
edit: This site is slowly turning into Reddit - contrarian opinions need not apply. Instead of down-votes, why not rebut what I said? It's not like the matter is settled, and the last couple times the populous tried to "abolish" social classes, mass terror followed.
Yeah, I agree with you there, but it seems to me that power and politics are a fact of life, like the air that we breathe or food that we eat. Maybe we can clean up the air or cook nicer things, but they will always be there.
If everyone did what they wanted to do all of the time, the world would simply cease to function.
Sort of, I’ve washed dishes for a living, bussed tables at an Outback steakhouse, worked as a line cook, stocked groceries at Kroger, and am now a professional software engineer and hobbyist artist.
My favorite gig was probably stocking groceries, as I enjoyed my coworkers and working at night.
Almost all of these jobs have been “truly boring”, but I’ve also been unemployed and completely without direction. That period of my life was very difficult, and I found that work, no matter how boring the job is, afforded me a dignity and purpose that I couldn’t find anywhere else. Of course, others may feel differently, and I understand that.
Am I the only one who likes work? And I don’t mean my job, just work in general.
The opposite actually. Start with John Locke and work your way up to Nozick.
Individual have rights and:
"So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do."
The lack of universal voting rights, as well as slavery, existed despite what I mentioned, not because of it. The Declaration of Independence is quite unequivocal: ...all men are created equal...endowed..with certain unalienable rights...
All you have shown is that we as people are flawed, even when the truth is right there in front of us.
I don't understand how an American can manage this thought. It runs in the face of every stated ideal and philosophical underpinning of this dear republic. I'll refer you to the concept of natural rights, Locke, Paine, the Deceleration of the Independence, the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, and the entirety of classical liberal philosophy.
The argument your side used to take was to attack the traditional family structure, calling it a force of oppression. I’m glad you’ve come around to accept that the traditional family structure is vitally important - this is a basic truth that we old stodgy conservatives have known for a long time; it’s comforting to see a Marxist in our purview.
Now as for the nonsensical rant about capitalism, I’ve had that debate about a thousand times, so I don’t see the point in engaging again - it’s not like we’re going to change each other’s minds.
Your conclusion isn't supported by your own data.
The "flip" doesn't occur around 1980, it occurs in the 1970's (feel free to download the excel sheet and examine it yourself, as I did) and it's a trend that follows ALL races, yet the crack era was largely an African-American epidemic.
There was, however, a major social movement in the 60's that encouraged free love, sexual liberation, women's rights, and an explosion of contraceptives. I think this is a stronger explanatory argument, one also made by the Brookings Institution:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wed...
I can't speak for him, but I don't think there is any sort of hidden implication.
As for the problem? Well, the 72% illegitimacy rate among African-Americans is an absolute social disaster (1). No amount of school funding or social welfare programs can fix an economic problem of that scope. And yes, I believe that this is a cultural problem. What is the solution? I don't know, but I'm open to debating, engaging, and supporting policy that will help.
That's because the link between funding and performance is tenuous at best. You are going to get down-voted by liberals because you're starting to engage in "wrongthink", but, deep down, they understand full well the issues and behavioral problems that are present in these public schools, which is why they will NOT send their kids to these schools, instead opting to self-segregate and send their kids to private schools - while at the same time bashing conservatives who wish to do the same.
This is extremely prevalent in diverse urban areas dominated by liberals, such as New York City.
The fact that you've normalized this is telling.
"Anti-Diversity" is a dog-whistle for a slew of brain-dead progressive groupthink, in the same way that "globalist" is, essentially, an anti-semitic slur.
If you believe that your company should hire the best and most qualified people for the job, you probably hold "anti-diversity" views.
If you do not believe me, below are some examples of "rascist" and "sexist" statements, per the University of Minnesota:
http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf
Examples:
“I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
“America is a melting pot.”
“Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
“Where were you born?”
“You speak good English.”
No they're not. How is it that you think the 'progressive-left' is sacrificing reason?
Where do you want to start?
- They actively contributed to an increased homicide rate and made neighborhoods more dangerous for minorities by pushing a false anti-police narrative, engaged in anti-police protests, sentiment, and actions. Their actions resulted in a pullback in policing in dangerous neighborhoods and massive spikes in crime rates. This is a view shared by many minorities, who wish for the police to return to their neighborhoods, so that they can feel safe. Source? How about the right-wing rag NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/31/574824963/baltimore-residents...
- They actively push pseudo-social science into fields where rigor, exactness, and soundness is most important, such as engineering, where errors can have catastrophic consequences:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19378629.2017.14...
- They viciously attack on ideological grounds any attempts at objective assessment when the statistics do not fit their narrative. Examples? There are hundreds, but how about professor David Gillhorn at the University of Birmingham, who says math serves "white interests" and:
“frequently encode racist perspectives beneath the facade of supposed quantitative objectivity.”
- They have, particularly on college campuses, collectively lost their minds. Please see the Evergreen State College incident, along with dozens of others.
- Most of their social science experiments are absolute junk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Do you want me to keep going?
The "right" isn't any more or less "reasoned" than the left. You can make arguments either way.
Also, this idea that finance is a cult of old stodgy conservatives is hilarious and patently untrue. Finance folks are usually comprised of wealthy and well-educated people living in major urban areas, particularly NYC, inline with the demographics of coastal liberals. Most are some form of libertarian, and generally progressive on most social issues. Blankfein (CEO of Goldman Sachs) is a registered Democrat, Jamie Dimon (CEO of JP Morgan) is a democrat, James Gorman (CEO of Morgan Stanley) regulrarly gives money to democrats and contributed to Hillary Clinton (1), as does Michael Corbat, the CEO of Citigroup.
(1) https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/james-...
(2)https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/michae...