I think Matt Stone sums it up the best ' I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.' White SJWs aren't the worst people out there, but they are intensely annoying. Maybe it's the hypocrisy? I can look at some racist redneck dude and think well at least he's honest, even though I would agree with the SJW much more often.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
A redneck is likely racist out of lack of education, having been brought up that way and seen not much else other than a perceived threat of 'others'. It does have some grounds of understanding. SJW's are college educated, wealthy middle-class individuals afforded all the opportunities in the world they claim they're being oppressed from. Their only excuse is being spoilt brats at this point... sigh
Good point about the differences in education and opportunities between those two groups. I think that does account for most of the disproportionate annoyance I feel towards their wanky views!
I've seen this video and strongly disagree with it. It seems nice on the surface with that uplifting music and the know-it-all coach, but beneath the surface, it's pretty troublesome.
All it's really pointing out is due to living in a free society we all make choices and consequences come from those choices. The choice of a mother and father to stay together, the choice of the father to leave the mother, these things set the stage for the future of a child and is the nature of freedom and individuality. The future choices may be made well or poorly, this is up to the individual to make themselves poor or successful.
The video instead seems to make this a racial propaganda video. This is a poor form of 'privilege'. Everyone has the freeom and indeed the right to make these bad decisions in life.
The only solution to what they're saying - and indeed the SJW movement is pushing - is to artificially equalize society via restriction; pulling back those who are ahead thanks to the choices their parents made until the ones at the back catch up, or pushing the ones at the back forwards tto catch up with those at the front despite being undeserved; putting them in positions of power that they didn't work towards.
It's a shame that some people's lives suck, but that has nothing to do with any problem with society which is what this video seems to imply. This is shifting the blame to society when things don't go your way because of the choices people in a free country made freely.
If you're born into shit because of your parents, you have to work your ass off to make up for it to the best of your ability. The government will pick you up under situation of absolute failure, but once you're on your own two feet, it's up to you; not us.
I didn't look at it that way, because he specifically says: "There is no excuse. They still gotta run their race."
I agree, though, that a nanny state doesn't help at all, but makes matters even worse. In America it is not as bad as it is in Europe, I believe. At least it wasn't 10 years ago, and I don't think it changed fundamentally. Artificially equalizing differences is not only impossible to achieve, but it also has a deep negative impact on any society.
One can't ignore or talk away those differences and they apply to everyone, everywhere. If your ancestors came to America already loaded with old money, then of course their descendants are likely to be in a better position 200 years later than the descendants of others, who came to America in chains. There is no way to give equal opportunities to everybody in the same way. The racial component in this video is purely circumstantial, I think. The reason is that while most other immigrants who went to America, went there by their own will, the Africans - and to some extent also the Irish - were brought there as a commodity. This does, of course, make a huge difference on their development for decades and even centuries after that. The only way to achieve equal opportunities is to not put obstacles in their way and let them catch up according to their abilities.
And that's exactly what social welfare doesn't do. Taking money from those who work and giving it to those who don't is part of the problem, not of the solution. It is a matter of common sense to realize that everything that is subsidized, will grow. If you pay poor and uneducated people for having children - as this is what is done in Europe - the result is an ever growing population of poor and uneducated people, while the ones paying for this insanity can't afford to have kids.
I always like to compare it to a school class in which the decision was made that there be no Es and Fs, and, that points are taken from the other students to make sure that the E- and F-students get enough marks to pass.
The best students will probably leave the school pretty soon. Those who would have gotten a D if they'd make an effort will choose go play outside, since they know they'll get a D anyway. The B- and C-students will struggle a while to keep their grades, and in the end there won't be enough marks to transfer, so that everyone will end up with an E - or worse. That is social welfare explained...
Kanye west recently said, to much hatred: 'When you hear about Slavery for 400 years? That sounds like a Choice'. People didn't really want to listen to what he was actually saying and instead hate on him, but it simply meant 'black people need to let go of the chains of their past now, and move on'.
My point is, though both the video and Kanye may indeed have had that kind of intention - the way and context it has been used is more to justify one's failings and blame others - We both seem to agree on the nanny state situation though, I was just rambling.
Moving on...
Your welfare argument seems to make sense but I don't think it plays back like that in the numbers. The economy is still growing, and people by and large don't actually want to be under welfare. Welfare is a tough, miserable life and given the choice, the vast majority want to get back to work if they can.
The problem is actually much deeper than that, at least in the UK. Once somebody is on welfare, it's incredibly hard to get out no matter how much you want it because the very act of going back to work forces you to take a major pay cut - who would sensibly ever do that?
So there is a bit of a trap, but it doesn't create an ever growing population of uneducated people; on the contrary, the generation after me have demonstrated they are far more eloquent and sophisticated in thought than I could hope to be; even the conversations I past of homeless guys was politically more informed than myself.
There is surely a shabby community of lowlives that feed off their right to live a miserable, poverty-borne lifestyle, but that number is minimal, I'm fairly sure
I agree that most people actually want to work. The problem is that to many of them it wouldn't make sense. If you don't have any skills, you'd have to work for minimum wage, right? That means, the money you make will buy you the same as the money you get from the government if you stay at home, because then the rent and the bills are paid for. You only have to worry about food. Now let's say you create one kid. Then you get money for that kid, plus you can apply for extra stuff. Like, if you want a baby buggy and you work, you will have to buy one. If you are on welfare, you can apply for one - then use the one you got from your cousin and sell the brand new one on eBay. If you have three kids, you get the equivalent of someone working for almost 20€ an hour, which for an unskilled worker is a salary impossible to achieve.
In the end it is a system that punishes those who make an effort and rewards those who don't - provided they know how the system works. It's not that people are lazy or that they are lowlifes. In the majority of the cases they are just not stupid enough to start working, as that would be stupid from the financial point of view.
And I guess that is kind of what you meant when you wrote:
Correct? If yes, then here we have the actual problem with social welfare. And - yes - it does create an ever growing population of uneducated people. I wasn't talking about uneducated in the sense of stupid. They are often better informed than working people because many actually do have the time to do their own research. They are mostly anything but stupid. I meant uneducated in the sense of "not fit for the work force", meaning, those kids will grow up learning where to get them money from the government and they will know that the government isn't your friend, but an enemy, but they won't grow up to be engineers, architects or university professors, because the very environment they grow up in is unable to teach them the value of acquiring a good education.[1] www.erstlingsausstattung24.de (n.d.) Hartz IV Empfänger – Antrag stellen auf Babyausstattung, was ist zu beachten? [Online].
Available at http://www.erstlingsausstattung24.de/hartz-iv-empfanger-antrag-stellen-auf-babyausstattung-was-ist-zu-beachten/ (Accessed 25 Jun 2018).