Why be right? [Archive] - I-Mockery Forum

Bennett

May 22nd, 2003, 12:54 PM

I'm sure that I'm going to get tons of shit for this, one of the reasons why is because it is a dangerous overgeneralization, but here goes anyway...

I know this sounds stupid and naive, but I was honestly trying to figure out why there are so many conservatives in this country. Okay, I can see how there is a large split with certain beliefs, abortion, national defense, the strong Christian ties with the Republican party... I can see how that would cause a lot of people to side with the R's.

But what strikes me as odd is when conservatives who are by no means wealthy and in some cases poor, are so firmly against government support movements: i.e. welfare, universal health care, etc., that would in cases benefit them.
At the same time this group of people vigorously supports tax cuts that in all likelihood will affect them very minutely.

Here's where it gets ugly, and this is in no way saying that Conservatives/Republicans are racist. I was watching a special about white supremist groups, which in turn reminded me of a sociology paper that I did in grad school about kkk websites:
the white supremists turn themselves into the minority, they turn themselves into the group that is being discriminated, they put themselves in a postition where they believe that something is being taken from them. Often these people are not wealthy, not successful, and they place the blame for their station in life on minorities.

I'm going to make a stretch and say that there are people out there who use this reverse discrimination rationale in their opinions about taxation. They turn themselves into the victims because it is "their hard earned money" that is used for welfare. But honestly, what percent of my taxes were used for welfare? I get almost two hundred dollars taken out of my paycheck every two weeks. For me, that's a whole LOT of money. But do I feel angry that maybe somebody was maybe able to buy a loaf of bread?

That's all for now. You are more than free to voice dissent, but I would prefer opinions and comments, not "fuck you" and "ur stoopids"

VinceZeb

May 22nd, 2003, 01:03 PM

I don't have time for a long detailed explanation, and althought you do not deserve one, I will give you will possibly tonight or tommorow morning.

But a short answer is this: Throughout history, look at the biggest gains and advancements for our society. "Conservative" ideals have been the driving force behind 95+% of them.

ItalianStereotype

May 22nd, 2003, 01:14 PM

Here's where it gets ugly, and this is in no way saying that Conservatives/Republicans are racist. I was watching a special about white supremist groups, which in turn reminded me of a sociology paper that I did in grad school about kkk websites:
the white supremists turn themselves into the minority, they turn themselves into the group that is being discriminated, they put themselves in a postition where they believe that something is being taken from them. Often these people are not wealthy, not successful, and they place the blame for their station in life on minorities.

how the black fuck does this relate at all to conservatism or Republicans? one could just as easily say that since there are racists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who consider themselves liberal, all liberals and Democrats are racists too. they do the exact same fucking thing that you just described, so by association, all people with left leaning tendencies must be hate-mongers. this type of gross generalization makes me doubt your "graduate school" education. in the future, leave the bullshit in general blabber.

Bennett

May 22nd, 2003, 01:28 PM

This has nothing to do with a racist person being a conservative or a liberal. It has to do with a mindset, by which one person associates with others or forms views based on the belief that something has been taken from them, or in some way they have been wronged.

I would think that you would have understanded this if you said that liberals often feel that they are being oppressed by the government, or something to that nature, but that would mean you understood what I wrote.

What I'm trying to talk about here is why people in a position that could benefit from tax-funded programs would be on the side of the fence that looks down on such programs and supports tax cuts that will never effect them.

It has nothing to do with racism other than an analogy to a "victim" mindset. If you're going to call this bullshit, at least support it with some reading comprehension.

El Blanco

May 22nd, 2003, 01:37 PM

What I'm trying to talk about here is why people in a position that could benefit from tax-funded programs would be on the side of the fence that looks down on such programs and supports tax cuts that will never effect them.

Self sufficiect attitudes. Most people believe that welfare is a hand out. The people you are refering to would much rather be left to fix their own problems and make their own way.

Also, when you get on welfare, it is very difficukt to get away from it. Not because you get addicted to it, but because the system traps you.

Bennett

May 22nd, 2003, 01:52 PM

Self sufficiect attitudes. Most people believe that welfare is a hand out. The people you are refering to would much rather be left to fix their own problems and make their own way.

That makes sense, it seems to me like there may be underlying psychological motivations for some people though. Could just be because I don't see things from that perspective.

Vibecrewangel

May 22nd, 2003, 01:53 PM

It really is all about being self sufficiant.

I'd also like to point out that the welfare system wasn't always a trap. I know it sounds like a cliché, but having come from the system I can say I remember a time when it was a hand up not a hand out.

Of course that part of my life was in suburbia. Maybe it was just perceived differently there.
Lately I've come to the conclusion that the place where I grew up was oddly naive considering it's location.
Either that or things really were more different 20 years ago than I care to think about.

ItalianStereotype

May 22nd, 2003, 01:53 PM

Bennett

May 22nd, 2003, 02:28 PM

I read what you quoted, which was one paragraph, the first of two paragraphs that set up an analogy between two mindsets. Read the last half of the first sentence you initially quoted.

oh now it is so obvious isn't it?

If you want to attack me on generalizations, attack me on the ones that I make, i.e. that all people who are for tax cuts and against things like welfare came to this opinion because they feel as if they are being wronged.

I know that this is not true, and if you went for that approach you would be completely right. I do, however, think that it has some weight in some people's decisions.

Tell me where it mentions racism in this paragraph:
"I'm going to make a stretch and say that there are people out there who use this reverse discrimination rationale in their opinions about taxation. They turn themselves into the victims because it is "their hard earned money" that is used for welfare. But honestly, what percent of my taxes were used for welfare? I get almost two hundred dollars taken out of my paycheck every two weeks. For me, that's a whole LOT of money. But do I feel angry that maybe somebody was maybe able to buy a loaf of bread? "

The racism bit was an analogy between two different mindsets, and I will only say this one last time, because everyone else obviously understands that. Its okay if you needed clarification, I can see how than might of been my fault, but you shouldn't throw a tantrum and call something bullshit if you don't even understand it.

So if you want nothing more than to turn this into a VinceZeb shouting match, I suggest you go somewhere else.

Jeanette X

May 22nd, 2003, 03:16 PM

Bennett

May 22nd, 2003, 03:22 PM

No matter, his post had nothing to do with the topic on hand, and hopefully we can live without the long and detailed explanation that El Blanco was kind enough to give me in, oh, five sentences.

ItalianStereotype

May 22nd, 2003, 03:33 PM

fine. it is possible that I may have taken it slightly out of context, but it is a poor analogy to begin with. it rings a bit closely with "all conservatives are rednecks" which I see way too often as it is.

condescending fuck.

jeanette-the definitions of liberalism and conservatism as they apply to American politics has changed since the Great Depression; besides, there was also that whole war thing.

Jeanette X

May 22nd, 2003, 03:40 PM

jeanette-the definitions of liberalism and conservatism as they apply to American politics has changed since the Great Depression; besides, there was also that whole war thing.

How did they change?

The_Rorschach

May 22nd, 2003, 03:55 PM

I'm going to try being tactful and polite because, well, Italian already beat me to the Angry White Man tone.

Its seems that you are working under a very dangerous generalization and to wit, that people are incapable of serving ideals which do not benefit themselves. I'm a Republican, I'm not rich, and I never will be. My initial beliefs were actually incredibly liberal, because like Kevin, seeing the ruination of my own country bothered me. I couldn't turn a blind eye to my own countrymen sleeping on the sleeps, I hated hearing about people who needed hospitol care, but were denied because they couldn't afford it and I didn't appreciate a government which handled these problems with such brutal and uncaring hands.

So why did I go over?

Well, because I happen to hold dear a string of beliefs based primarily upon personal responsiblity, and secondarily upon communal responsibility. I have enough conviction that, even if my ideals are in no way beneficial, and in fact at often times adervsarial to my own needs, then I will support them anyway because I believe that if they are followed by others and implimented nationally, everyone will benefit.

I think Italian is going to handle Welfare Reform and Racism, which really, you're talking out your ass on. So I'll take the third theme, I support the tax cut, and though the reasons why are a little complicated, I'll try and simplify them for the sake of conversation.

Governments cannot fix recessions, they are natural to capitalistic economies. The recession is a natural liquidation process, and any governmental interference will only prolong it and make it perminent. The only way a government can act positively is to speed it up, and that can only be done by cutting its own spending. Resources need to shift, an adjustment process need to take place naturally within the private sector. To prop the wage rate up, which is of course what the New Deal did, to prop them up and prevent them falling destroys the whole adjustment process and prolongs the recession perminently which is what happened in tne thirties. The Tax dividends are unlawful, doubt taxation is wrong no matter how you look at it. Whether or not trickle down economics works, Conservatives understand that the more government interference you have, the worse the citizens will eventually suffer. This measure was passed merely as a placating gesture because Bush knows what many cannot understand: The government is not equipped to solve some problems, and in fact, can only make them worse.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"Here's where it gets ugly, and this is in no way saying that Conservatives/Republicans are racist. "

Actually, thats pretty much exactly what you are saying, though only by implication. Let me ask you one question, with a bit of a preamble. It was originally said by Tom Blair in 1994, so they are not my words, but I paraphrasing it for simplicity's sake. See, I've written some papers on this two, but I was not content to watch secondary sources on television, and took it upon myself to investigate primary sources on my own.

'. . . . Jewish nationalism (Zionism) is openly accepted at the highest levels of government and the media. Latino nationalism is funded by the government through the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and La Raza (The race) which openly advocates racial triumphalism and reconquest (reconquista). African-American racial nationalism and advocacy is also supported by America’s power nexus. Asian separatism and insularity are legendary. Why is then, when those of us who are of indigenous European blood seek kinship around those who share our own heritage, they are labeled "white supremacists?" . . . .'

Now Nietzsche said "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" and I agree, but the double standard which seems to exists almost makes me sympathetic to so-called 'white supremacists.' Almost. It seems that if you're white, you have to admit to being a sexist, narrowminded bigot, or else you are seen as a closet racist. You have to apologize for 'institutionalized racisms' and acts committed by men who died four generations ago, or else you're a hate monger. Our liberal media constantly cites the cause of various civic problems as a lack of white initiative to correct past misdeed, asking whites to be more responsible, and everyone else, to be less. They take one thing, and call it something else, in order to alleviate the personal responsibilities of individuals. It's not crime, its poverty. Whatever.

This is an entirely seperate issue, and has nothing - I repeat nothing- to do with conservatism as an ideology. Italian is right to rip you a new asshole on this issue.

Bennett

May 22nd, 2003, 04:24 PM

I agree, but the double standard which seems to exists almost makes me sympathetic to so-called 'white supremacists.' Almost. It seems that if you're white, you have to admit to being a sexist, narrowminded bigot, or else you are seen as a closet racist. You have to apologize for 'institutionalized racisms' and acts committed by men who died four generations ago, or else you're a hate monger. Our liberal media constantly cites the cause of various civic problems as a lack of white initiative to correct past misdeed, asking whites to be more responsible, and everyone else, to be less. They take one thing, and call it something else, in order to alleviate the personal responsibilities of individuals. It's not crime, its poverty. Whatever.

This is an entirely seperate issue, and has nothing - I repeat nothing- to do with conservatism as an ideology. Italian is right to rip you a new asshole on this issue.

This is exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about when talking about the "victim" mindset. This discrimination becomes part of the white supremacist's identity. It becomes something that they use to fuel their beliefs. As you said, it has nothing to do with conservatism. As I never said it did.

I'm going to try to rephrase this, in what I hope is a more accessible description:
There are people, who I know I have come across, hopefully you have too, that when the issue of tax (increase, decrease, whatever) comes up, immediately turn their focus on what is being taken from them. There are people who immediately focus on Welfare, whether or not that is even an issue. People who say things like, "these people don't deserve my hard-earned money," "these people are just looking for a hand-out," when the fact of the matter is, welfare might not even be an issue with the tax issue in question. These are the people that I do not think are concerned with being self-sufficient. These are the people that turn themselves into victims.

Now here are the generalizations that I saw in this point-of-view:
first, there are so many more reasons for and aspects to being a republican/conservative. To try and say that this is the only reason why someone holds a group of beliefs doesn't really hold up, and I knew it would not hold up here.

Secondly, it would be easy to say that there are liberals who chose their point of view on the workings of the government because they feel as if they have been wronged. There are people who would rather complain about the station of life that they were born into, or their own financial mishandlings, than do anything about. There are people who actually DO look for handouts. Would you disagree with this?

So honestly, is it so outrageous for me to believe that there are people out there whose views on taxation are influenced if not formed by a feeling of being victimized?

The_Rorschach

May 22nd, 2003, 04:40 PM

"As you said, it has nothing to do with conservatism. As I never said it did."

You are an idiot. LOOK AT THE NAME OF THIS THREAD AND TELL ME WHY WHITE SUPREMACY BEARS MENTIONING. You did not say Republicans Are Redneck Racists Twits, but you did infer it, just as Italian duly noted above.

"These are the people that turn themselves into victims."

What are you? The purveyor of falty generalities? If someone stands up for their interest, to take an active hand in how the money they provide the government with is spent, they are doing so out of victim complex? You went to public schools didn't you. I don't honestly believe that minorities are all that great of a drain on our society, I think that is a hobgoblin of petty minds who see statistics but forget that they only represent one facet of our termical society. HOWEVER. By refusing to accept the financial burden of others, they are standing up for their rights as taxpayers, which is distinctly un-victim like in my opinion, they are using the system as it was meant to be used, as a tool for THEIR benefit -Or have you forgotten what ideals this nation was founded on, you know, of the people for the people and all that? Victims are generally made up of those who cannot, or simply do not, stand up for themselves, not those who seek to resist infringements upon their persons, property or assets.

"So honestly, is it so outrageous for me to believe that there are people out there whose views on taxation are influenced if not formed by a feeling of being victimized?"

Yes. In order for there to be a victim, there needs to be a perpetrator. Who would it be in this context? The Government? But that is who most of these taxpayers are addressing their concerns to. The "illegal" aliens? But they have no power, and are merely passive recipients. Your little theory doesn't hold water, even at an elementary level of scrutinizing.

Bennett

May 22nd, 2003, 04:47 PM

It bears mentioning in the light that it was upon watching something on the subject that made me wonder about it's pschological relation to something else. Simple as that. Stated that from the beginning.

and read over my last post, I am saying that there are people who no matter what the issue at hand is immediately equate higher taxes with welfare and other things they don't consider themselves responsible for.

yes, the government would be the perpetrator. Is that invalid that they would voice their concerns to the institution that they think wronged them?

The_Rorschach

May 22nd, 2003, 05:01 PM

"it bears mentioning in the light that it was upon watching something on the subject that made me wonder about it's pschological relation to something else."

So you are making a comparison then. Play the man for a moment, and admit to it, you snivelling little shit.

"and read over my last post, I am saying that there are people who no matter what the issue at hand is immediately equate higher taxes with welfare and other things they don't consider themselves responsible for."

Well for fuck's sake, there are people that fuck livestock animals too. Should we use them as the text subject for questions regarding hetero sexuality? After all, both are having intercoarse. Thats about as consistant as using your precious minroity of taxpayers to represent the views held by the majority of conservatisms who lobby with similar interests.

"yes, the government would be the perpetrator. Is that invalid that they would voice their concerns to the institution that they think wronged them?"

Were your dropped, or violently thrown, upon the ground as a baby? Under this 'logic' we should make requests of rapists not to commit further acts of aggression against women rather than the police. Look, you're wrong. Not just a little, but toally and utterly. It really is that simple, you're not going to save any face on this issue, you may as well just accept it and move on. This theory is invalid.

KevinTheOmnivore

May 22nd, 2003, 10:24 PM

jeanette-the definitions of liberalism and conservatism as they apply to American politics has changed since the Great Depression; besides, there was also that whole war thing.

I think Eye Tie made the most relevant point right here. This also makes Vince's asinine claim that 95% or whatever of everything that has ever happened has been conservative, or whatever. I anticipate the explanation behind that one like a 6 year old on Christmas Eve.

I wan't to avoid this topic for some reason, perhaps because it has a lot to do with my concentration in college, and my brain can't handle any more of this shit.

I think the notion that conservatism espouses self-sufficiency, thus its popularity, is a tad bit misleading. We are a social animal, we are highly dependent upon each other. I think however that the ideal of independence is prevailing throughout America, as well as a general disdain for people who supposedly mooch of the system, and don't supposedly work as hard as "we" do. IMO, this is a fallacy, primarily because Americans of all incomes are working harder than they ever have before for less, calculating inflation. I think the ability to look down upon a generated "other" ironically serves as a great motivator for the American people, which makes Americans some of the most prosperous and creative in the world, IMO. This however carries other negative consequences I think, one obvious one being a divisive attitude that prevails throughout much of America. Our primate friend VinceZeb is a fine example of this.

Sorry, I'll put more effort into it later. I apologize for not doing justice to comments made by Ror, Bennet, Eye Tie, and Blanco.

Pub Lover

May 22nd, 2003, 11:02 PM

Governments cannot fix recessions, they are natural to capitalistic economies. The recession is a natural liquidation process, and any governmental interference will only prolong it and make it perminent. The only way a government can act positively is to speed it up, and that can only be done by cutting its own spending.

In the 1930's European Governments put money into 'Job creation schemes' to reduce the effects of the American inspired worldwide recession. Europe were then on course to have emerged from the recession before the US if it hadn't been for the wars.

Also, in Europe, there hasn't been a major recession at any time there has been a majority of socialist governments.

I don't credit your view on this issue, Ror. :/

The_Rorschach

May 22nd, 2003, 11:27 PM

__________________________________________________ ___
In the 1930's European Governments put money into 'Job creation
schemes' to reduce the effects of the American inspired worldwide
recession. Europe were then on course to have emerged from the
recession before the US if it hadn't been for the wars.
__________________________________________________ ___

What are you are describing is defecit spending in order to encourage economic growth

Not only is that belief unsound, it displays considerable ignorance. The fact is, deficits can pretty well worsen recessions with depression, because one of the main characteristics of any severe recession is widespread bankruptcy. Deficits contribute to that by withdrawing capital from availability for business – the deficits absorb savings, and those savings are then not available to be lent to business firms in need of credit, so more firms go under than would otherwise have done so, and that perpetuates recession economics into depressions.

You're working under a popular misconception, to wit, money spent by the government is somehow more beneficial than that spent by the private sector. The government, however, will run at a deficit and not borrow from the general public and instead will manufacture what money they need by printing it. Thus they'll enlarge total spending while simultaneously lowering the value of that money in the years to come. You need only look to Japan in order to see that this is only effective in short term applications, and almost never during a recession.

Consider, for a moment, the War Between the States. Lincoln, forced to finance a length war, created the Greenback, or what is now known as a dollar, which was a loan from a New York bank to the US Treasury at 36% annually. Basically what Lincoln did, was print worthless paper money, for debts private and public, as a proxy for the currency of the Union which was based upon a Gold standard. The results? Inflation and recession. Published data showed that money supply in 1865 per capita was $47.42: Currency $1,651,282,373 Population 34,819,581 In the yearly contraction down to 1877, per capita money supply had fallen to $14.60 Circulation was down to $606,000,000. Government spending can never, ever, cure a recession.

An essential requirement to a sound economy is balanced budgets with small government spending. That has been the basic philosophy on which the United States has founded our system of free market enterprise, and one we lost sight of a hundred years ago.

*information of money sums from the Civil War taken from
http://www.shawneelink.net/~pridger/lincoln/grnbkhist.htm

Pub Lover

May 23rd, 2003, 12:20 AM

What are you are describing is defecit spending in order to encourage economic growth

Not strictly true, the Governments were spending money to support employment that the private sector couldn't or wouldn't do themselves, and anyway, Europe has a longer tradition of Government led initiatives, than the US. :/

Bennett

May 23rd, 2003, 12:55 AM

"So you are making a comparison then. Play the man for a moment, and admit to it, you snivelling little shit."

I've been saying to Italian since the start that it was an analogy, if you would prefer I call it a comparison when addressing you, then it's a comparison. I hope that suits you and is sufficient enough of an admission.

"Well for fuck's sake, there are people that fuck livestock animals too. Should we use them as the text subject for questions regarding hetero sexuality? "

Not entirely, but I wouldn't say that it isn't a question that should be discussed.

----------------------------------
"In order for there to be a victim, there needs to be a perpetrator. Who would it be in this context? The Government? But that is who most of these taxpayers are addressing their concerns to. "

First you seem to say that someone cannot be a victim to the same entity that they voice their disdain to. In other words, if one is complaining to the government, they can't be a victim to the government?

'"yes, the government would be the perpetrator. Is that invalid that they would voice their concerns to the institution that they think wronged them?"'

"Under this 'logic' we should make requests of rapists not to commit further acts of aggression against women rather than the police. "

I'm just going to have to ask you straight up, what the fuck are you talking about here? Is there some government police that people are supposed to take their complaints about laws, legislation and foreign policy to?

Do you feel that it is unfair that money that you worked for is taken from you and given to others? If it is unfair, then do you not feel that the government has done something wrong? Your ability to not see yourself as a victim is perhaps a testimony to your sense of self reliance.

However, my point, my reason to establish a discussion is that I believe that there are a large group of people who (and this is the important part) who no matter what the situation is (for example a tax increase that does little or nothing towards a welfare program) who will fire up a defense where they view themselves as a victim of a government that is taking their hard-earned money to give others a handout. Yes, I used a comparison to attempt to explain this, mainly because it was something else that put this idea in my head.

Perhaps we disagree with the number of people who have formed their views in this manner. I would say that most people who have wouldn't openly admit or even realize that that was how they came to their beliefs. However, if you believe that there are not people like this in our society, then I have yet to be convinced.

The_Rorschach

May 23rd, 2003, 11:20 AM

"I'm just going to have to ask you straight up, what the fuck are you talking about here? Is there some government police that people are supposed to take their complaints about laws, legislation and foreign policy to?"

The framers of the Constitution actually set a precident for dealing with a government which is victimizing its populace, its called Revolution buddy. I realize this concept is kind of obscure in American historty, but a few of us are privy to such arcane knowledge.

My point, to make things this, no more than you would appeal to the sensibilities of a serial murderer about to kill you, would the people complain to the government they are being victimized by. Seeing a few dollars directed into government projects you disagree with is not so great a concern that anyone is truly a victim as a result.

"Do you feel that it is unfair that money that you worked for is taken from you and given to others?"

No. I pay my taxes because it is a civic responsibility, and I trust the powers that be to make use of those assets as they see fit, as they are in a better position to to make those decisions than many citizens are. We as a society grant them that power because we realize that they are better informed than we are, in theory, and thus tend to respect their decisions. Granted, they are everybit as prone to judgements of error as we are, but because of their occupation, it is far less likely.

"If it is unfair, then do you not feel that the government has done something wrong?"

No, its not like a tax has ever been passed which the public did not see coming. The system is very concise, you can follow a bill's procession all the way to becoming a law, on television and online. You can agree with it, or disagree, but the system is not unfair. If you don't like a bill, get together a petition. Write some letters. Phone your senator. There are steps which can be taken, steps which are taken, by those with a very un-victim like mindset.

"Your ability to not see yourself as a victim is perhaps a testimony to your sense of self reliance."

Or a testiment to the fact that we do not live in a society where conservatives are self-percieved victims. How many conservatives post here? How many took heated offense to your White Supremacist comparison and theory of victimized motivation for right wing thinking?

"However, my point, my reason to establish a discussion is that I believe that there are a large group of people who (and this is the important part) who no matter what the situation is (for example a tax increase that does little or nothing towards a welfare program) who will fire up a defense where they view themselves as a victim of a government that is taking their hard-earned money to give others a handout."

And you base this on. . .conjecture? You haven't provided anything even remotedly factually supportive of such a theory.

"I would say that most people who have wouldn't openly admit or even realize that that was how they came to their beliefs."

So we have self-percieved victims who don't see themselves as victims. Is this the latest breakthrough in your brilliant theory?

'Hmmm. . .These Conservatives don't seem to see themselves as victims. I can't possibly be wrong. They must be indenial!"

ItalianStereotype

May 23rd, 2003, 12:10 PM

woah...i've been away from this thread for too long. as you seem to have things well in hand, I will yield this thread to you, ror.

Vibecrewangel

May 23rd, 2003, 12:14 PM

I just have to say

:love Ror :love

and

:love Italian :love

Bennett

May 23rd, 2003, 12:36 PM

You've got some truly brilliant stuff here, I must admit:

"The framers of the Constitution actually set a precident for dealing with a government which is victimizing its populace, its called Revolution buddy. I realize this concept is kind of obscure in American historty, but a few of us are privy to such arcane knowledge. "

Oh yes, how silly of me, rather than write a letter to my local government saying how I think the double taxation they're trying to put on my local cable bill is wrong, I should just grab my musket and take over the state capitol. Or maybe I should just break off and form my own country because I disagree with the death penalty in my state. Wow. How could I have forgotten about the good ole revolution clause?

"Seeing a few dollars directed into government projects you disagree with is not so great a concern that anyone is truly a victim as a result. "

Which I agree with, but I don't think that other people would agree.

"No. I pay my taxes because it is a civic responsibility, and I trust the powers that be to make use of those assets as they see fit, as they are in a better position to to make those decisions than many citizens are. We as a society grant them that power because we realize that they are better informed than we are, in theory, and thus tend to respect their decisions. Granted, they are everybit as prone to judgements of error as we are, but because of their occupation, it is far less likely. "

"...its not like a tax has ever been passed which the public did not see coming. The system is very concise, you can follow a bill's procession all the way to becoming a law, on television and online. You can agree with it, or disagree, but the system is not unfair. If you don't like a bill, get together a petition. Write some letters. Phone your senator. There are steps which can be taken, steps which are taken, by those with a very un-victim like mindset. "

So you honestly believe that as long as our government passes a specific bill, then it must be right. Or, if it isn't, and we've wrote letters, protested, signed petitions etc., then, well, I guess we have to revolt, right?

"How many took heated offense to your White Supremacist comparison and theory of victimized motivation for right wing thinking? "

people took offense to the comparison because they came to a conclusion that was irrelevant to the original comparison. I'll write it out, and this is not meant to be symbolic logic so a preemptive strike on comments about that.
Group A comes to conclusion 1 using method Z.
Group B comes to conclusion 2 using method Z.
Group A and B use method Z.
Not Group A and B come to conclusion 1.
Not Group A equals Group B.

If you want to take offense to the issue at hand, that's fine. I said it myself, that I believe there are liberals who use the same mindset in a different manner.

"So we have self-percieved victims who don't see themselves as victims. Is this the latest breakthrough in your brilliant theory? "

Yes I do believe that there are times when a person may not be totally aware of the circumstances that form their persona. I believe that there are times when we don't fully understand why we make the decisions we do or why we take a certain stance. Can you honestly trace back every influence that turned you into the being you are today? You've already come to the conclusion that I was thrown onto my head as a child, only by what you've read. Can you give me the end-all definition of "self?" Sorry if the idea of subconcious influence is too much of a stretch

Also, I think you're definition of a 'victim' or 'un-victim' like things are a little narrow. Just because someone is a victim of something doesn't mean that they cannot do something to try and remedy the situation. You call these un-victim like things, but a person can use the fact that they were(or they believed they were) wronged as motivation for their views and actions.

HitlerWasReich

May 23rd, 2003, 05:02 PM

Roosevelt's policies may have actually hurt the US more than helped, many economists argue over it.
Pub lover
"Also, in Europe, there hasn't been a major recession at any time there has been a majority of socialist governments."
Holding up Europe as an example is a poor choice. The U.S. grows faster economically and our standard of living keeps increasing while their's is flat. Germany and France are experiencing massive depressions as we speak. They are trying to retool their social security programs which caused a massive protest recently, huge numbers of people simply walked off the job.
So their programs which are highly socialistic aren't working. OR did you mean when most governments in the area were socialist? Which would be what? 10 days in the 1900s? Or are you referring to Eastern Europe under the USSR, we all know how great that system was.

" Europe were then on course to have emerged from the recession before the US if it hadn't been for the wars." and if puppy dogs were moonpies no one would go hungry. Nice "what if" with no real data. The Great depression was partly caused by this cycle: Germany pays reparations to UK and France; who then pay back the US for WWI; who then loan the money back to Germany who pays back.....
One day Germany decides to keep the money for internal improvements and bam massive defaults on loans, hardly caused by the US.

The_Rorschach

May 23rd, 2003, 08:32 PM

Actually, Hitler is right on here. Roosevelt's socialist dickering adversely affected the US, it did not aide us at all. It was a superificial recovery which actually created variables that, had it not been for WW 2, would have been the economic ruin of the United States. I won't go on, because mostly, thats been explained above.

"Oh yes, how silly of me, rather than write a letter to my local government saying how I think the double taxation they're trying to put on my local cable bill is wrong, I should just grab my musket and take over the state capitol. Or maybe I should just break off and form my own country because I disagree with the death penalty in my state. Wow. How could I have forgotten about the good ole revolution clause?"

You're trivializing, but its not going to work. Revolution is an extreme solution to an extreme problem, it is not to be used lightly, and apparantly by your application there, you HAVE forgotten about the revolution clause. The people are not captives, or victims, of their government. Period. The day they are, they will know it, just as the Russian under Stalin knew it, and one day they will fight back.

"Which I agree with, but I don't think that other people would agree."

Who the fuck are you? Their thought minister? I propose the guardianship of your thoughts to you, and they to theirs, get out of their skull and desist trying to use broad generalizations to support your nutters little theory.

"So you honestly believe that as long as our government passes a specific bill, then it must be right."

No, I merely believe that the majority of Americans, though apathy, inaction or approval, have given their consent and that the law should be respected.

"Or, if it isn't, and we've wrote letters, protested, signed petitions etc., then, well, I guess we have to revolt, right?"

Apparantly you are a missing something here. . .If enough people disagreed with something, like welfare, and petitioned against it, wrote letters and made calls to Capitol Hill, and their number's were great enough to even consider a Revolution. . .You would see it disappear over night. The aim of a first term politician is to get a second term, and that is all. Politicians reflect the will of the people, but often, the people do not let their will be known and so it is not the politicians I fault. The people are not victims, but they are idle.

"people took offense to the comparison because they came to a conclusion that was irrelevant to the original comparison."

No, I took offense to it because you have no idea where I stand, and exactly how insulting that phrase is, or worse yet, you do and don't care. White people aren't necessarily superiour, I can look around me and see that. I live in an apartment, with moderate means and modest accoutrements. I do, however, love my Irish heritage, with respect for the Germanic, Celtic, Scandinavian and Slavic cultures. Does those make me a hate monger? Hardly.

"So we have self-percieved victims who don't see themselves as victims. Is this the latest breakthrough in your brilliant theory? "

"Yes I do believe that there are times when a person may not be totally aware of the circumstances that form their persona."

Yes, but you are trying to say, not only are they unaware of the circumstance, but also of the persona itself. That is simply ludicrous.

"Can you honestly trace back every influence that turned you into the being you are today?"

No, but I can trace back the majority of them since I reached them through a process of rationalization.

"Can you give me the end-all definition of "self?" Sorry if the idea of subconcious influence is too much of a stretch"

So it becomes like every other psuedo-scientific theory then. When preliminary evidence suggests you're wrong, add in something to make in incomprehensible. For the matter, I am going to posit that all humans truly believe they are clouds, and that they do drugs in order to reach the heavens and soar with their brethren, and that, they do so subconciously. . ,Stupidity.

"I think you're definition of a 'victim' or 'un-victim' like things are a little narrow."

What is this buttfuckery? OF COURSE IT'S NARROW ASSHOLE, THAT'S WHAT DEFINITIONS ARE! They aren't loose conceptions of general ideas, they are strict descriptions. "I think your definition of heterosexcality is narrow! I can rape little girls, and thats still hetero right?!" Come on! Use your fucking head.

"Just because someone is a victim of something doesn't mean that they cannot do something to try and remedy the situation. You call these un-victim like things, but a person can use the fact that they were(or they believed they were) wronged as motivation for their views and actions."

Not everyone who is wronged is a victim, especially in this context, because it is their own laziness which facilitates such situations.

Pub Lover

May 23rd, 2003, 11:34 PM

Germany and France are experiencing massive depressions as we speak.
They both have right-wing Governments at the moment. :(

They are trying to retool their social security programs which caused a massive protest recently, huge numbers of people simply walked off the job.
What would you expect? They are trying to remove entitlements that have been in place for decades, wouldn't you do the same?

So their programs which are highly socialistic aren't working.
Both France & Germany have right-wing dogmatists in power who are deconstructing their social welfare programmes, that as far as I know where working fine.

OR did you mean when most governments in the area were socialist? Which would be what? 10 days in the 1900s?
I think you will find that during the 1960's & 70's social democracy reigned supreme across Western Europe. Even when more right wing parties such as the CDU or the conservatives were in Government during that period they did not depart from the consensus of the times.

Or are you referring to Eastern Europe under the USSR, we all know how great that system was.
They were dictatorships. :/

Nice "what if"...
Yes, sorry about that. :(
I play that game too often.

VinceZeb

May 24th, 2003, 08:05 AM

How is Germany or France a right-wing govt? Please explain this.

Pub Lover

May 25th, 2003, 12:17 PM

How is Germany or France a right-wing govt? Please explain this.

I just did a google search, & got 286,000 hits for "france right wing Government"
CNN was one of the top hits, & it was a story from June 2002 when France last had elections & "France's coalition of rightist parties [were] set to be confirmed as the overwhelming election victor, giving a clear mandate to conservative President Jacques Chirac." (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/06/16/france.elex/) Now, Jean-Marie Le Pen is extremely right-wing, but that doesn't make Chirac a 'lefty'.

Now, a simular feat of finding supporting evidence simply by replacing 'France' with 'Germany' was unsuccessful insofar as the first few hits were not pertinent to this topic, & as it's almost 4:30 am, my time, I'm not in a mood to pursue it any further. :(

However, looking back on your question, I see now that you asked for 'Germany or France', therefore I don't feel as guilty now for being so half-arsed. ;)

AChimp

May 25th, 2003, 02:19 PM

Germany is more centrist than right or left. The Social Democrats only pretend that they are left, when in reality they lean right on some issues and go left on others, just like the Liberals here in Canada.

The_voice_of_reason

May 25th, 2003, 02:40 PM

Well it is nice to see two well supported but opposing viewpoints. Your problem is the traditional black or white when the answer is sitting next to me in the gray. Maybe the victim mindset is rooted so deep that it is not apparent to those who have, like everyone in this discusion.

What i want to know is why don't "conservatives" and "liberals" see that maybe they were mistaken and their ideas should change. both sides make good points so let's put away the knives and find the answer, right here in the middle.

The_Rorschach

May 25th, 2003, 03:20 PM

Die.

HitlerWasReich

May 26th, 2003, 04:11 PM

the problem with 286,000 hits is that they are impossible to sort through. It seems that the "right wing" governments have to change social security programs to keep their economies afloat. I tried looking at the causes of recession and policies that were implemented but the task is too much for me. So Pub Lover, you say the right wing government caused these problems, prove it. Can you provide some sources for the economic data you mentioned? Anything to back up your point of view would be much appreciated.

Bennett

May 26th, 2003, 11:27 PM

Your idea that a person cannot be, or rather, view themself as a victim of government unless it is something of an extreme nature doesn't make sense. Maybe I shouldn't have said that your definition was narrow, it's just wrong. Here are two definitions of a victim:
-One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
-A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.

You tried to say that people couldn't be victim to the government unless they revolted, of course I trivialized this. Then you said that because they did not make their will known, they are not victims because it's their own fault. Maybe I should have said your definition was too broad. Regardless, it's wrong.

If a person believes that they fit into one of the definitions above, then they would consider themself a victim. Simple as that, it has nothing to do with fault or their inactions.

Don't take it personally, it's obvious that you don't think of yourself as a victim. It's obvious that you don't think that people should view themselves as victims. I guess that you don't think that there are people that view themselves as victims, either. Or would you never even wonder about that opinion because you aren't the thought police?

Look this isn't Sociology digest, and I'm simply stating an opinion. If the major disagreement between us is whether or not people see themselves as victims of the government, then I would say that I'm right in believing that there are people who see themselves as such as opposed to believing that this is an impossiblity.

Yes, if you are male, and you decide to rape little girls, then that is heteosexual. The narrow definition of heterosexual is having intercourse with someone of the opposite sex. It's heterosexual without consent, but all this is beside the point.

The_Rorschach

May 27th, 2003, 12:15 AM

Dictionary dot com? Like your theorizing, your research is lazy and inept.

__________________________________________________ ___
Main Entry: vic·tim
Pronunciation: 'vik-t&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English vyctym, from Latin victima; perhaps akin to Old High German wIh holy
Date: 15th century
1 : a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite
2 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent <the schools are victims of the social system>: as a (1) : one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions <a victim of cancer> <a victim of the auto crash> <a murder victim> (2) : one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment <a frequent victim of political attacks> b : one that is tricked or duped <a con man's victim>
- vic·tim·hood /-"hud/ noun
__________________________________________________ ___

Am I really wrong? Victims cannot create their own victimhood. That defeats their status as 'oppressed.'

"You tried to say that people couldn't be victim to the government unless they revolted"

No I didn't.

"Simple as that, it has nothing to do with fault or their inactions. "

Nope, it has everything to do with fault.

"Or would you never even wonder about that opinion because you aren't the thought police? "

Never even occoured to me, to be honest, to so much as wonder about it. People are individuals, even those who share close philosophies have unique perspectives.

"Yes, if you are male, and you decide to rape little girls, then that is heteosexual."

No, it makes you a rapist and a pedophile. It does not make you a heterosexual. Words have meaning, and must be applied correctly. Would you call a nuclear warhead a chair simple because it can be sat upon?

Grow up Bennet, or at least stop posting. Your views are as boring as they are baseless.

AChimp

May 27th, 2003, 12:20 AM

I'd just like to say that this thread has now gone my ability to comprehend it.

We need direction, people! >:

Bennett

May 27th, 2003, 10:58 AM

Like your argument, your research is pompous and based on misinterpretation. However, your approved definition, which is so radically different than what I provided again mentions fault nowhere. If your implication of fault balances on the word 'oppressed,' which it seems like it does, may I remind you that the word 'oppressed' is followed by a couple commas and the word 'or'.

["You tried to say that people couldn't be victim to the government unless they revolted"

No I didn't.]

"Yes. In order for there to be a victim, there needs to be a perpetrator. Who would it be in this context? The Government? But that is who most of these taxpayers are addressing their concerns to."

"The framers of the Constitution actually set a precident for dealing with a government which is victimizing its populace, its called Revolution buddy"

"Revolution is an extreme solution to an extreme problem, it is not to be used lightly, and apparantly by your application there, you HAVE forgotten about the revolution clause. The people are not captives, or victims, of their government. Period. The day they are, they will know it, just as the Russian under Stalin knew it, and one day they will fight back. "

["Yes, if you are male, and you decide to rape little girls, then that is heteosexual."

No, it makes you a rapist and a pedophile. It does not make you a heterosexual. Words have meaning, and must be applied correctly. Would you call a nuclear warhead a chair simple because it can be sat upon?]

Yes words have meaning, and since you are so familiar with that you would know that 'heterosexual' is not only a noun, but also an adjective. Go look it up in your fancy dictionary, and hopefully you will be able to understand how the NARROW definition, remember now about words meaning things, can apply to an act of rape, whether it is pedophilia or not.

"Never even occoured to me, to be honest, to so much as wonder about it. People are individuals, even those who share close philosophies have unique perspectives."

Doesn't suprise me that you would not be interested in this. After all, you are the same compassionate individual who stated: "Victims are generally made up of those who cannot, or simply do not, stand up for themselves, not those who seek to resist infringements upon their persons, property or assets."

Do you understand how contradictory this statement is to the rest of your postings? By definition, you say that a victim is usually a person who allows themself to be. In other words, it is their fault that they are a victim. Then you say that a victim cannot create their own victimhood. A person cannot be a victim if it is their fault that they are in that situation. Whatever.

If you want to talk about growing up, stop trying to turn this into a pissing contest. You haven't said anything that was remotely as interesting, insightful or intelligent as El Blanco and vibecrewangel managed to do in around three sentences. If this thread is boring to you, go puff out your chest somewhere else. Or maybe try a civilized post, that would be true grown-up behavior.

kellychaos

May 27th, 2003, 12:35 PM

My loose interpretation of the libertarian party is one in which the government is both small, conservative and loosely controls the economy and where the people are granted individual liberty and personal responsibility. I actually agree with some of their platform but one of the key points that steers me away are some of the nut jobs that the party attracts and to whom they're giving this " individual liberty and personal responsibility" (see Vince). Just sayin'. :)

VinceZeb

May 27th, 2003, 12:48 PM

Yeah, kelly, I am a productive citizen of the U.S. that cares about my govt so I shouldn't have individual rights or responsabilties. God forbid I don't have a nanny state that watches over me.

Dumbfuck.

Jeanette X

May 27th, 2003, 01:53 PM

No, it makes you a rapist and a pedophile. It does not make you a heterosexual. Words have meaning, and must be applied correctly. Would you call a nuclear warhead a chair simple because it can be sat upon?
I love that analogy Ror! I'm definetely using it when I debate people who refer to pedophile priests who attack altar boys as "homosexuals".

The_Rorschach

May 27th, 2003, 07:28 PM

Poor poor Bennit. Now I understand your failed scholarly attempts. You lack the reading comprehension skills publc schools give seven year olds.

"Like your argument, your research is pompous and based on misinterpretation"

Using an online Webster's dictionary is pompous? Trying to find an exact definition pertaining the roots of the word is misinterretation?

Use smaller words, you may be able to apply them more correctly in the future.

"Yes. In order for there to be a victim, there needs to be a perpetrator. Who would it be in this context? The Government? But that is who most of these taxpayers are addressing their concerns to."

Let me make this simple for you, this statement means:

Government = Mediator, not oppresser

"The framers of the Constitution actually set a precident for dealing with a government which is victimizing its populace, its called Revolution buddy"

Victimized Citizens = Propencity for revolt

"Revolution is an extreme solution to an extreme problem, it is not to be used lightly, and apparantly by your application there, you HAVE forgotten about the revolution clause. The people are not captives, or victims, of their government. Period. The day they are, they will know it, just as the Russian under Stalin knew it, and one day they will fight back. "

Revolution = Worst Possible Solution.

Now, how can any of these statements, or any comdinations thereof, equal trying to "say that people couldn't be victim to the government unless they revolted."

Does this level of stupidty come natural to you, or must you work at it?

"Yes words have meaning, and since you are so familiar with that you would know that 'heterosexual' is not only a noun, but also an adjective."

Yes, but it is inaccurate. If I tell my peers that you are a heterorsexual, will they know that it is your tendancy to try and extrort sexual favours from small children? No? Then obvious heterosexual does not apply to your inclination, because it is not exact enough to encompass your particular sexual deviancy.

"Go look it up in your fancy dictionary, and hopefully you will be able to understand how the NARROW definition, remember now about words meaning things, can apply to an act of rape, whether it is pedophilia or not. "

Actually, you should take your own advice to heart. The whole purpose of a vocabulary is to explain concepts as exactly as possible, not create maneouvring room for flawed theorizing.

"Victims are generally made up of those who cannot, or simply do not, stand up for themselves, not those who seek to resist infringements upon their persons, property or assets."

Now see, this is where you are become confused again. Context: study it, respect it, use it. I was using YOUR definition of the Conservatives in your lame little philosophy as the 'Victim,' perhaps I should have put it in quotation marks to make this more clear to you, but I felt that uncecessary considering the tone of the conversation. In any case, saying that Conservatives, and all citizens for that matter, do not take the initiative to make their will known and therefore must suffer policies which do not reflect their interest is hardly new. . .In fact, Plato said it first, and he said it best:

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
- Plato

"Do you understand how contradictory this statement is to the rest of your postings? By definition, you say that a victim is usually a person who allows themself to be. "

No actually I am saying they aren't victims because they are the archtiects of their own misfortune.

"In other words, it is their fault that they are a victim"

Yes therefore they are not victims.

"Then you say that a victim cannot create their own victimhood. A person cannot be a victim if it is their fault that they are in that situation. Whatever. "

You are coming close to the truth now boyo. One more step, need Daddy to hold your hand?

Bennett

May 28th, 2003, 01:36 AM

Now, how can any of these statements, or any comdinations thereof, equal trying to "say that people couldn't be victim to the government unless they revolted."

Here you go:
The people are not captives, or victims, of their government. Period. The day they are, they will know it, just as the Russian under Stalin knew it, and one day they will fight back. "

Yes words have meaning, and since you are so familiar with that you would know that 'heterosexual' is not only a noun, but also an adjective."

Yes, but it is inaccurate...

What part of "adjective" don't you understand? You see, I just learned about adjectives in my public school seventh grade class (my catholic school friend says I should've learned this a while ago) and even I know that adjectives are used to describe other words.
When used in this way, a word provides the most detailed possible description of another word.

"Victims are generally made up of those who cannot, or simply do not, stand up for themselves"

Sorry, you can try to backtrack all you want... this is your definition not mine. You insist on bringing fault into the equation, rather than accept the definition (even that which you provided).

Your response was pompous because of your tone and assertion that the definition produced from one online dictionary is so vastly superior than another. The misinterpretation deals with your misuse of the definition you provide yourself. Since you can't even agree with yourself on the definition of the term, I guess I shouldn't have expected to see a dictionary clarify anything.

You've contradicted your main point, in a discussion you are uninterested in. Need I say more? Go away.