Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Whatever - Scalzi)   John Scalzi just invalidated all of your arguments about your taxes being too high   (whatever.scalzi.com) divider line 538
    More: Hero, Air Force Base, Mr. Johnson, Fresno Bee, Glendora  
•       •       •

42311 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2012 at 4:56 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



538 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-23 03:11:04 PM  
the fact I was born at an Air Force base means that I owe a thanks to America's military for offering medical care to my mother (based on her relationship to my father, who was in the military at the time), and indirectly to America's tax payers, whose dollars went to supporting the military, and thereby those doctors, nurses, my father's paycheck and my mother's medical care

www.ffxionline.com

Our excessive military budget is one of the few things the teabaggers are OK paying taxes for.
 
2012-07-23 03:17:27 PM  
I love when teabaggers think restating the same herp-a-derp a bit more forcefully is "proving liberals wrong.'
 
2012-07-23 03:48:17 PM  
So you guys DNRTFA and assumed it to be the exact opposite of what it is? Yeah, sounds about right.
 
2012-07-23 03:49:25 PM  
Reader, I married her

I don't know who this guy is, but I just fell in love with him.
 
2012-07-23 03:49:55 PM  

jake_lex: I love when teabaggers think restating the same herp-a-derp a bit more forcefully is "proving liberals wrong.'


Scalzi is a Tea Partier for saying he's got no problem paying a lot of taxes?
 
2012-07-23 03:52:27 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Scalzi is a Tea Partier for saying he's got no problem paying a lot of taxes?


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2012-07-23 04:03:37 PM  

what_now: Reader, I married her

I don't know who this guy is, but I just fell in love with him.


Start here, he's a damn good author and writes a intelligent and fun book.
 
2012-07-23 04:04:09 PM  
WTF is going on in this thread?
 
2012-07-23 04:04:34 PM  

what_now: Reader, I married her

I don't know who this guy is, but I just fell in love with him.


Reader? I hardly know her!
 
2012-07-23 04:07:32 PM  
Odd reaction from the first couple of posters... but anyway, this is pretty much a well-worded retread of things that have been said here many times. I don't care who you are or what you do, you didn't get there "on your own".
 
2012-07-23 04:10:29 PM  
No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-23 04:14:29 PM  
It's a great article, but I think most of the anti tax types could write a similar article if they were honest (and literate) enough.

You can't run a business without infrastructure to transport goods and services, a legal system and police to keep people from taking your product instead of paying for it, a currency so you can have commerce without having to barter, and lots more along that line.
.
 
2012-07-23 04:18:15 PM  

gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.


citation needed.jpeg
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-23 04:30:15 PM  

gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.


Really? What was that about?
 
2012-07-23 04:43:51 PM  

RichieLaw: citation needed.jpeg

vpb: Really? What was that about?


I'm guessing gerrymander is just upset that Scalzi wrote a very good article called "Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is" and he disagrees with the concept, even though the article is 100% correct, 0% racist, and very well-written.
 
2012-07-23 04:43:54 PM  
I spent most of it waiting for a punchline.
If you take it seriously, you can see how many steps it took for him to become successful, and how many other people where involved or at least supportive of his rise. If you think he was being sarcastic, then it seems he overdid it and proved he is not as successful as he is claiming to be.

Still not sure which way he was really going.
 
2012-07-23 04:49:20 PM  

Slives: I spent most of it waiting for a punchline.
If you take it seriously, you can see how many steps it took for him to become successful, and how many other people where involved or at least supportive of his rise. If you think he was being sarcastic, then it seems he overdid it and proved he is not as successful as he is claiming to be.

Still not sure which way he was really going.


The subby is screwing with you. Scalzi's post is not in any way a post about taxes, it's a post in defense of Obama's statement that we all got somewhere through the help of others. It's a serious post, not sarcastic in the least bit.
 
2012-07-23 04:53:43 PM  
The confusion people have with this headline and TFA is weird.
 
2012-07-23 04:58:30 PM  
How about the rent? Is that OK?
 
2012-07-23 05:00:00 PM  
Any tax system that can afford to have people on welfare packing phones that cost more than my last car has taxes that are too high.

/invalidates the invalidation
 
2012-07-23 05:00:17 PM  

skinnycatullus: WTF is going on in this thread?


total farkers happened to it
 
2012-07-23 05:00:19 PM  
Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.
 
2012-07-23 05:00:40 PM  
Oh this Job Creator™ sounds way too much like a Socialist® to be loved by the right wingers that suck on the dong of the very wealthy.
 
2012-07-23 05:01:56 PM  
www.afewwords.com

"Everybody has to pay taxes!"
 
2012-07-23 05:02:44 PM  
My taxes ARE to high. The problem is yours are too low.
 
2012-07-23 05:02:55 PM  
I still haven't forgiven Scalzi for his rape of the Fuzzy story.
 
2012-07-23 05:04:02 PM  
raising taxes in economic downturns generally isn't wise, but they'll do what they're going to do
 
2012-07-23 05:04:26 PM  
T L D R

/gots to get workin' so I can pay my taxes!!!
 
2012-07-23 05:04:40 PM  

vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?


He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.
 
2012-07-23 05:06:18 PM  
Got no reason, what the heck!
Pay my taxes, pay my taxes;
PAYG my taxes.
 
2012-07-23 05:07:51 PM  
"I grew up in a time when the economy wasn't as awful as it is now and the entire family didn't need employment to scrape by. Since nothing ever changes I don't see why people are complaining about taxes"
 
2012-07-23 05:10:18 PM  
$meggy $murf 2012-07-23 05:00:00 PM


Any tax system that can afford to have people on welfare packing phones that cost more than my last car

So your last car was a beater off the Fartbama's Buggies 4 Bux lot, huh?
 
2012-07-23 05:10:20 PM  

gerrymander: He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!


was it when that story came out about wells fargo charging black and latino people higher interest rates than white people?
 
2012-07-23 05:10:26 PM  
15% of my pay check for state income alone isn't too high?

/small business co-owner in CA.
//*sigh*
 
2012-07-23 05:10:28 PM  

what_now: Reader, I married her

I don't know who this guy is, but I just fell in love with him.


If you like sci-fi at all, read Old Man's War. In fact, even if you don't like sci-fi, read it anyway. It's an excellent book.
 
2012-07-23 05:11:53 PM  

timujin: Odd reaction from the first couple of posters... but anyway, this is pretty much a well-worded retread of things that have been said here many times. I don't care who you are or what you do, you didn't get there "on your own".


BU BU BUT INDUSTRIAL GRADE BOOT STRAPS!!!
\0/
|
/ \
 
2012-07-23 05:12:42 PM  
No, he didn't. The fact that something is beneficial doesn't mean we owe a blank check. You can be for taxes and still think that they are too high or unfairly proportioned.
 
2012-07-23 05:12:48 PM  

tooeasy: raising taxes in economic downturns generally isn't wise, but they'll do what they're going to do


Giving tax breaks at a time of war isn't wise either but that' didn't stop anyone did it.
 
2012-07-23 05:13:14 PM  
I couldn't help but notice that he doesn't mention how much extra he voluntarily pays in taxes each year for all of those govt services he took advantage of as a kid.
 
2012-07-23 05:13:14 PM  
Successful people always think things work out if you just try.

Oh, and I have no problem with taxes, as long as they are used wisely...and ours are not. Not even if you stay out of Military vs Education, red vs blue, R vs D issues.
 
2012-07-23 05:14:25 PM  
I love this strawman liberals are setting up to defend Obama. Nobody is arguing success happens in a vacuum. The argument is what is responsible for a successful business. A lot of hard work goes into creating a business, the government does not get to say they are mostly responsible for that as Obama implies. Taking a long reading of Obama's inference, everyone would be successful merely because roads exist. That is not the case whatsoever. Individuals utilize public shares to the best of their capacity. The web we know today would not exist without capitalists improving on the darpanet infrastructure.

If Obama wants credit for all successful business, he has to take credit for business that fails as well. For every road that allowed the transport of good there is a regulation that made the market to costly for some to enter; whether it is eminent domain, costly regulations, cost of licensing (hair dressers), etc. Government can help or hinder a business. But it takes an individual to CREATE the business, not government. That is what Obama said wrong, individuals do create business.
 
2012-07-23 05:14:57 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Any tax system that can afford to have people on welfare packing phones that cost more than my last car has taxes that are too high


My iPhone 3 was $0.99 since I signed up for a 2 year service plan so I'm not sure what your point is. Are you complaining that people on welfare can afford a phone?
 
QDW
2012-07-23 05:15:08 PM  

SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.


That's dumb.Just saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. Even trivial analysis shows this is not just silly but frankly delusional.

Freeways, CDC, FAA, the criminal justice system, fire departments, even... dare I say it... the military are not things that can be privately funded. Geez....

/Forehead sore from the enormous slap I just gave it.
 
2012-07-23 05:15:10 PM  
"my grandfather told me he would replace it"

And there we have it.

Didn't take long. You must. have. resources. Or else it won't happen.
 
2012-07-23 05:16:00 PM  
Very good article showing how success comes not solely from yourself but is achieved with help from friends, family, and a lot of luck. Nobody ever truly makes it to the top with just hard work at some point everybody has gotten a lucky break.

/I imagine the confusion over the headline and article is the fact that people have read to many herp derp articles about "self made men" and didn't read the full thing.
 
2012-07-23 05:16:04 PM  
You mean we all don't live in a vacuum?

/Dyson for me
 
2012-07-23 05:16:44 PM  

QDW: SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.

That's dumb.Just saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. Even trivial analysis shows this is not just silly but frankly delusional.

Freeways, CDC, FAA, the criminal justice system, fire departments, even... dare I say it... the military are not things that can be privately funded. Geez....

/Forehead sore from the enormous slap I just gave it.


4/6 ain't bad.
 
2012-07-23 05:17:08 PM  

gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


Wow. Turns out I was totally right. You ARE remarkably ignorant about privilege. And your reading comprehension sucks if you read any racism or sexism against white males into Scalzi's post.
 
2012-07-23 05:17:16 PM  

Rincewind53: RichieLaw: citation needed.jpeg
vpb: Really? What was that about?

I'm guessing gerrymander is just upset that Scalzi wrote a very good article called "Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is" and he disagrees with the concept, even though the article is 100% correct, 0% racist, and very well-written.


Its funny; I have gerrymander favorited as "racist". I don't remember the context but it was a long time ago.
 
2012-07-23 05:17:27 PM  
Taxes = theft... What good Might be done with the stolen money doesn't make it moral.
This guy is an idiot.
 
2012-07-23 05:17:34 PM  

ThatDarkFellow: "I grew up in a time when the economy wasn't as awful as it is now and the entire family didn't need employment to scrape by. Since nothing ever changes I don't see why people are complaining about taxes"


i290.photobucket.com

FTFA: "My parents' marriage did not last particularly long and in the early seventies - and off and on for the next several years - my mother found herself in the position of having to rely on the social net of welfare and food stamps to make sure that when she couldn't find work (or alternately, could find it but it didn't pay enough), she was able to feed her children and herself. Once again, I owe thanks to America's taxpayers for making sure I had enough to eat at various times when I was a child."
 
2012-07-23 05:18:33 PM  

Cybernetic: what_now: Reader, I married her

I don't know who this guy is, but I just fell in love with him.

If you like sci-fi at all, read Old Man's War. In fact, even if you don't like sci-fi, read it anyway. It's an excellent book.


Seconded and thirded.
 
2012-07-23 05:18:33 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Smeggy Smurf: Any tax system that can afford to have people on welfare packing phones that cost more than my last car has taxes that are too high

My iPhone 3 was $0.99 since I signed up for a 2 year service plan so I'm not sure what your point is. Are you complaining that people on welfare can afford a phone?


How much does that service plan cost relative to one on a more modest phone that doesn't include any data usage?
 
2012-07-23 05:18:55 PM  

jake_lex: I love when teabaggers think restating the same herp-a-derp a bit more forcefully is "proving liberals wrong.'


John Scalzi is pretty much the opposite of a Teabagger.
 
2012-07-23 05:19:04 PM  

gerrymander:
It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.


As a white straight male I was unable to discern anything denigrating to white straight males in that particular blog of Scalzi. Would you care to enlighten us to what makes you foam at the mouth about the pretty realistic observation that by and large life is easier for straight white males?

Okay, life is temporarily easier when you're a hot white woman (regardless of sexual preference) in her late teens, early twenties. But then age catches up. What is your beef?
 
2012-07-23 05:20:19 PM  
Anyone who thinks Prop. 13 is responsible for California's education problems is regurgitating someone else's talking points and has no actual knowledge of the topic.

Prop. 98
 
2012-07-23 05:20:21 PM  

roxtar10870: Taxes = theft... What good Might be done with the stolen money doesn't make it moral.
This guy is an idiot.


You ever choke on your own spittle or do you just let it fly all over your monitor?
 
2012-07-23 05:22:11 PM  

gerrymander: Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!


Ugh. I read that and what pissed me off the most wasn't the idea of white privilege (which arguable hasn't existed in America for decades), it was that if your white and male and hetero and don't achieve a truckload of success, then you are the weakest and laziest of the bunch. No one else is responsible for their success or failures, but you are.
 
2012-07-23 05:22:13 PM  

MyRandomName: I love this strawman liberals are setting up to defend Obama. Nobody is arguing success happens in a vacuum. The argument is what is responsible for a successful business. A lot of hard work goes into creating a business, the government does not get to say they are mostly responsible for that as Obama implies. Taking a long reading of Obama's inference, everyone would be successful merely because roads exist. That is not the case whatsoever. Individuals utilize public shares to the best of their capacity. The web we know today would not exist without capitalists improving on the darpanet infrastructure.

If Obama wants credit for all successful business, he has to take credit for business that fails as well. For every road that allowed the transport of good there is a regulation that made the market to costly for some to enter; whether it is eminent domain, costly regulations, cost of licensing (hair dressers), etc. Government can help or hinder a business. But it takes an individual to CREATE the business, not government. That is what Obama said wrong, individuals do create business.


I smell a strawman, but it's not the one you made up.
 
2012-07-23 05:22:26 PM  

gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


You're an idiot.
 
2012-07-23 05:22:54 PM  
"Everybody has to pay taxes!"

Otherwise it's like stealing from the gummint!
 
2012-07-23 05:22:58 PM  

SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.


The private sector did a bang up job in 1929-1933.
 
2012-07-23 05:23:34 PM  

Cybernetic: what_now: Reader, I married her

I don't know who this guy is, but I just fell in love with him.

If you like sci-fi at all, read Old Man's War. In fact, even if you don't like sci-fi, read it anyway. It's an excellent book.


Not really. Sure, it starts out good, real good, and is a fun read mostly, but the last half is pure, untempered Gary Stu dreck. I just about quit reading when I couldn't get through a page without feeling the urge to roll my eyes except that I don't like to leave a book unfinished.

/Still would like to read Redshirts. He does humor well.
 
2012-07-23 05:24:32 PM  

roxtar10870: Taxes = theft... What good Might be done with the stolen money doesn't make it moral.
This guy is an idiot.

Taxes aren't theft, and if think they are you are clearly stupid.
 
2012-07-23 05:24:52 PM  

jaybeezey: I couldn't help but notice that he doesn't mention how much extra he voluntarily pays in taxes each year for all of those govt services he took advantage of as a kid.


I couldn't help but notice your giant red herring. Do you guys get flashcards to help you avoid the topic when you register for NRO or something?
 
2012-07-23 05:25:57 PM  

MyRandomName: I love this strawman liberals are setting up to defend Obama. Nobody is arguing success happens in a vacuum. The argument is what is responsible for a successful business. A lot of hard work goes into creating a business, the government does not get to say they are mostly responsible for that as Obama implies


So true, look at all the successful multinationals that come out of countries with no infrastructure, no court system to ensure contracts and little security. If businesses were actually built on the foundation that society provides the most powerful and profitable companies would all come out of countries with a stable governments providing robust social and security services.
 
2012-07-23 05:26:01 PM  
The source article was more of an ode of thanks to all the people he owes and how he views his obligations to society and helping others through that lens. So subby is making a bit (not much, but a bit) of a leap to summarizing it as a pro-taxes article when it is so much more.

But that said - AGREED. The people who think they got where they are all by themselves are full of BS, nobody does.

And understanding that your own success is extremely dependent on the existence and assistance (direct or indirect) of others is a necessary ingredient to not being a cheap bastard about taxes or being a miserable human being.

(lived in many countries with higher taxes, had no problem paying)
 
2012-07-23 05:26:15 PM  
People need to quit arguing over taxes. Taxes aren't the issue. The issue is spending - how much and on what, and even how its disbursed. Fix that and let taxes be whatever they need to be. We're overfunding the military by a lot. We're funding public education instead of funding students. We pay farmers not to farm and we pay poor people to keep them poor. I can fix all of this if elected, which will never happen, so I'm not going to waste anymore time on it. I'm going to have a beer and watch Jeopardy, which will be on locally in abuot 3 minutes. So long suckers.
 
2012-07-23 05:26:58 PM  

gerrymander: He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!


Just to be clear: You're saying Scalzi was wrong because RICH straight white guy is an easier setting than Regular straight white guy?
 
2012-07-23 05:28:05 PM  

roxtar10870: Taxes = theft... What good Might be done with the stolen money doesn't make it moral.
This guy is an idiot.


So, the government doesn't have the right to dispose goods as it sees fit? And isn't ownership merely an exclusive use contract you have with the government re: certain goods? If the government doesn't have the right to use "your" $20 to finance public works, why does it have a right to keep me from using your beach house?
I would posit that if taxes are theft, then property is theft.
Welcome comrade, always glad to see another commie on fark!
 
2012-07-23 05:28:28 PM  
"Price of bread may worry some, but it don't worry me.
Tax relief may never come, but it don't worry me.
Economy's depressed, not me.
My spirit's high as it can be.
And you may say that I ain't free,
But it don't worry me ..."

\Obscure?
 
2012-07-23 05:28:35 PM  
The government runs inefficiently and wastes a certain percentage of money because of that.

If the government was better at it's job, it could do it with X% of it's current budget.

Our taxes are 100-X% too high.

Revalidated.
 
2012-07-23 05:29:07 PM  
Government is 100% responsible for the creation of wealth. Just look at Solyndra!
 
2012-07-23 05:29:11 PM  

SlothB77: the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently.


Guess how we know you're a farking retard?
 
2012-07-23 05:29:32 PM  

gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since I projected my own racism and bigotry onto Scalzi because I'm unwilling to admit that "white privilege" is real and that would make me feel bad about myself, Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.


FTFY


Magnanimous_J: I read that and what pissed me off the most wasn't the idea of white privilege (which arguable hasn't existed in America for decades)


You're funny.
 
2012-07-23 05:30:09 PM  
Hey John? If you're reading this thread, you can also thank my friend TB for telling me to read "Old Man's War."

I already thanked him, and picked up the next 2 as well.
 
2012-07-23 05:30:18 PM  

MyRandomName: I love this strawman liberals are setting up to defend Obama. Nobody is arguing success happens in a vacuum. The argument is what is responsible for a successful business. A lot of hard work goes into creating a business, the government does not get to say they are mostly responsible for that as Obama implies. Taking a long reading of Obama's inference, everyone would be successful merely because roads exist. That is not the case whatsoever. Individuals utilize public shares to the best of their capacity. The web we know today would not exist without capitalists improving on the darpanet infrastructure.

If Obama wants credit for all successful business, he has to take credit for business that fails as well. For every road that allowed the transport of good there is a regulation that made the market to costly for some to enter; whether it is eminent domain, costly regulations, cost of licensing (hair dressers), etc. Government can help or hinder a business. But it takes an individual to CREATE the business, not government. That is what Obama said wrong, individuals do create business.


Are you that stupid, opr just playing it on Fark?
Obama is hired help, in office, not power.
Like all of your precious "conservative" and "Republican" phonies.

If you believe the sound of your own wheels, you are divided and conquered and a waste of humanity.
 
2012-07-23 05:30:50 PM  

Teufelaffe: Cybernetic: what_now: Reader, I married her

I don't know who this guy is, but I just fell in love with him.

If you like sci-fi at all, read Old Man's War. In fact, even if you don't like sci-fi, read it anyway. It's an excellent book.

Seconded and thirded.


Came here to ask about it.

Added to the book list.
 
2012-07-23 05:31:01 PM  
To paraphrase Louis CK, if you can't admit that being a white man is awesome you are an asshole.
 
2012-07-23 05:31:13 PM  

serial_crusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Smeggy Smurf: Any tax system that can afford to have people on welfare packing phones that cost more than my last car has taxes that are too high

My iPhone 3 was $0.99 since I signed up for a 2 year service plan so I'm not sure what your point is. Are you complaining that people on welfare can afford a phone?

How much does that service plan cost relative to one on a more modest phone that doesn't include any data usage?


The data component of the plan is something ridiculously cheap like $10 per month. On the whole, it's only slightly more expensive than a land line. Would you like to try moving the goalposts again?
 
2012-07-23 05:31:48 PM  

SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.


Non-profit =! Private Sector, but who cares.? You're probably trolling anyway.
 
2012-07-23 05:32:23 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: jaybeezey: I couldn't help but notice that he doesn't mention how much extra he voluntarily pays in taxes each year for all of those govt services he took advantage of as a kid.

I couldn't help but notice your giant red herring. Do you guys get flashcards to help you avoid the topic when you register for NRO or something?


I laughed and laughed. Well played. Your new farkie is "I couldn't help but notice your giant red herring". What's your favorite color?
 
2012-07-23 05:32:43 PM  
I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.
 
2012-07-23 05:32:47 PM  

Philimus: "Price of bread may worry some, but it don't worry me.
Tax relief may never come, but it don't worry me.
Economy's depressed, not me.
My spirit's high as it can be.
And you may say that I ain't free,
But it don't worry me ..."

\Obscure?


i knew this rocketman once, sounded like that.
 
2012-07-23 05:33:25 PM  

SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently.


And you are oblivious to the difference between the words "fact" and "unsubstantiated assertion".
 
2012-07-23 05:33:48 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.


Nonsense, just lucky.
Be patient, it can change.
 
2012-07-23 05:33:58 PM  

gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


So being honest, and objective to a fault, regarding Your experience of reality is wrong, or bad? Especially when You are intent on changing the status quo to better reflect the vision You have of what is right?

I guess all of the taxes I, and the rest of our fellow citizens happily paid for Your education was not enough to increase Your comprehention of what he really wrote. I suppose it's ok, if only because You weren't the only one to fail in understanding the intent of Scalzi's comments.

No, being Shortsighted is Not acceptable. I'm not perfect, neither are You, and we both know that Scalzi is not, but I think he's Honest about what he sees as reality, I know I am.

/not libtard, also not ultraconservadumb
//just another Adult US American
 
2012-07-23 05:34:00 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: The government runs inefficiently and wastes a certain percentage of money because of that.

If the government was better at it's job, it could do it with X% of it's current budget.

Our taxes are 100-X% too high.

Revalidated.


Its...

/embarassed.
 
2012-07-23 05:34:40 PM  

dugitman: The confusion people have with this headline and TFA is weird.


It's like a cataclysmic explosion of Poe's Law.
 
2012-07-23 05:34:47 PM  

QDW: SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.

That's dumb.Just saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. Even trivial analysis shows this is not just silly but frankly delusional.

Freeways, CDC, FAA, the criminal justice system, fire departments, even... dare I say it... the military are not things that can be privately funded. Geez....

/Forehead sore from the enormous slap I just gave it.



Ahem...you must not be aware of the private companies that provide firefighting coverage. Rural Metro would be an example...they're a pretty big deal.
 
2012-07-23 05:35:06 PM  
images.sodahead.com
 
2012-07-23 05:35:22 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: THAT is what "white privelage" means.


That's wealth privilege.
 
2012-07-23 05:36:06 PM  

keypusher: Anyone who thinks Prop. 13 is responsible for California's education problems is regurgitating someone else's talking points and has no actual knowledge of the topic.

Prop. 98


Are you arguing that Prop. 98 cancels out the loss of funding resulting from Prop. 13?
 
2012-07-23 05:36:17 PM  

beta_plus: Government is 100% responsible for the creation of wealth. Just look at Solyndra!


Seriously weak diversionary tactic is seriously weak.
 
2012-07-23 05:36:29 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.


Bullshiat! I have exprienced almost every item on your list.
 
KIA
2012-07-23 05:36:59 PM  
Being poor sucks no matter what color you are. I'm glad Mr. S. was able to attend a private school, have enough to eat and squeak into the University of Chicago. He does have prodigious talent and I don't begrudge him anything. In fact, I'm a big fan.

The problem with high taxes arises when they createmay a barrier of entry for the middle class and a ceiling on middle-class wage earners.
 
2012-07-23 05:37:14 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.


What if you're a white, heterosexual, gainfully employed male who knows all of those things are like firsthand? Does my anecdote beat yours? Do we flip a coin? Or can we say that there is a social construct wherein people believe that white, heterosexual males are privileged, much the same that people believe that women are paid 78 cents on the dollar, and if you're African American you're more likely to end up in jail?

Stereotypes are fun when we apply them to people that deserve it right?
 
2012-07-23 05:37:36 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: serial_crusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Smeggy Smurf: Any tax system that can afford to have people on welfare packing phones that cost more than my last car has taxes that are too high

My iPhone 3 was $0.99 since I signed up for a 2 year service plan so I'm not sure what your point is. Are you complaining that people on welfare can afford a phone?

How much does that service plan cost relative to one on a more modest phone that doesn't include any data usage?

The data component of the plan is something ridiculously cheap like $10 per month. On the whole, it's only slightly more expensive than a land line. Would you like to try moving the goalposts again?


So, $240 more over the life of your contract? Depends on how cheap of a car Smeggy Smurf drives, I guess. Either way, pointing out that you ignored one of the largest costs of your phone because of a shiny sticker price, doesn't constitute moving goalposts

You're also assuming that the theoretical welfare recipient in his example is still using a 3 year old phone like you are. I think Smeggy was accusing them of having shiny new phones, not obsolete crap.
 
2012-07-23 05:38:32 PM  

Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]


Conservative Logic: Humans have the same cognitive capabilities as all other animals.

/Yes, they're that stupid.
 
2012-07-23 05:38:47 PM  
Who remembers that many teachers?

/barely got past the "my mom made me with her vagina" intro
 
2012-07-23 05:38:48 PM  

MyRandomName: I love this strawman liberals are setting up to defend Obama. Nobody is arguing success happens in a vacuum. The argument is what is responsible for a successful business. A lot of hard work goes into creating a business, the government does not get to say they are mostly responsible for that as Obama implies. Taking a long reading of Obama's inference, everyone would be successful merely because roads exist. That is not the case whatsoever. Individuals utilize public shares to the best of their capacity. The web we know today would not exist without capitalists improving on the darpanet infrastructure.

If Obama wants credit for all successful business, he has to take credit for business that fails as well. For every road that allowed the transport of good there is a regulation that made the market to costly for some to enter; whether it is eminent domain, costly regulations, cost of licensing (hair dressers), etc. Government can help or hinder a business. But it takes an individual to CREATE the business, not government. That is what Obama said wrong, individuals do create business.


This!
Scalzi may have missed the point in his well reasoned article. You did not. Bravo, and thanks.
 
2012-07-23 05:39:02 PM  

SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.


Not everything needs to be done for a profit motive.
 
2012-07-23 05:39:02 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered,gender normative heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.


FTFY

As for your comment, you are an idiot if you think white, hetero, men with jobs never experienced those things.
 
2012-07-23 05:39:06 PM  

snocone: Nonsense, just lucky.
Be patient, it can change.


No, as a white male in my mid 40s I'd say he's pretty much spot on.
 
2012-07-23 05:39:51 PM  

gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


Having read the blog post in question: It's okay. You can continue to enjoy Scalzi. I think it's pretty obvious that Assberger's counts as a disability, so clearly the blog doesn't apply to you.
 
2012-07-23 05:39:53 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.


Sounds like you need to step out of your all-white burbclave once in a while.
 
2012-07-23 05:41:56 PM  
This subby obviously didnt read the article.

Apart from being on welfare, taxes did nothing for this man. He was handpicked for his talents and abilities all through life, and spent this article thanking people for it. PEOPLE. not TAXES. TIME and value placed upon people without a pricetag, is what got him where he is. IDK what the subby was implying... thinking taxes all of a sudden makes it a "level playing ground" for all the other worthless kids? sorry, quite the opposite. maybe one person in america will be wholly helped by the tax concessions of this man. Everything else is a waste, and makes it worse for everyone else. System is broken. He got lucky.
 
2012-07-23 05:42:03 PM  

Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]


While that is pretty funny, the US Parks Service is a part of the Department of the Interior. US Forest Service is a part of the Department of Agriculture and is has a campaign to keep the public from feeding all bears not names "Smokey".

/The More You Know. . . .
 
2012-07-23 05:42:12 PM  

gerrymander: He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!


Link

You are the asshole he refers to. (NSFW language)
 
2012-07-23 05:42:19 PM  

Headso: MyRandomName: I love this strawman liberals are setting up to defend Obama. Nobody is arguing success happens in a vacuum. The argument is what is responsible for a successful business. A lot of hard work goes into creating a business, the government does not get to say they are mostly responsible for that as Obama implies

So true, look at all the successful multinationals that come out of countries with no infrastructure, no court system to ensure contracts and little security. If businesses were actually built on the foundation that society provides the most powerful and profitable companies would all come out of countries with a stable governments providing robust social and security services.


I want to marry this post.
 
2012-07-23 05:42:44 PM  
I'm a middle of the road Independent. I've voted for members of both major parties in the last 3 presidential elections. I don't know any Tea Partiers and most of my friends are Liberal and Middle of the road Democrats.

With that, all I have to put forth is that Subby is a retard.

/Thanks.
 
2012-07-23 05:43:00 PM  
snocone: "i knew this rocketman once, sounded like that."

I don't know about this "rocketman" you speak of, but I salute you for your service.

\"... tellin' me that I've got to beware."
 
2012-07-23 05:43:02 PM  

OgreMagi: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.

Bullshiat! I have exprienced almost every item on your list.


You must not be white then. It is impossible for white people to ever be poor. I bet you can at least spell "privilege" correctly though.
 
2012-07-23 05:43:29 PM  

kasmel: Or can we say that there is a social construct wherein people believe that white, heterosexual males are privileged, much the same that people believe that women are paid 78 cents on the dollar, and if you're African American you're more likely to end up in jail?


images.businessweek.com

www.project.org

In other news: Reality is now a "social construct."
 
2012-07-23 05:43:52 PM  

Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]


There's a government program dedicated to feeding 'people food' to forest wildlife? Humph, learn something new every day.
 
2012-07-23 05:44:44 PM  

Rincewind53: Wow. Turns out I was totally right. You ARE remarkably ignorant about privilege. And your reading comprehension sucks if you read any racism or sexism against white males into Scalzi's post.


The racism and sexism is present in the selective attention. If he had done an entire series of posts wherein different audiences each had their own privilege proclaimed as "easy mode" with an attendant examination of how they get benefits they might not merit, I wouldn't be complaining. (And if he did after I stopped reading, please say so, and I'll do my homework and reconsider.)

But parenthetical note aside, I'm fairly confident he didn't -- because like you, he doesn't actually acknowledge that different people may gain different societal benefits they don't merit in different situations. (Take these informal dating studies, for example. Not the results expected from the "straight, white male privilege" model, to say the least.) The elitism Scalzi displays is a modern form of what used to be called "the white man's burden", bringing enlightenment to the savages. That he's casting other white men in the role of the savages doesn't make the racism any less appalling.

That you can't recognize it is just embarrassing.
 
2012-07-23 05:44:55 PM  

OgreMagi: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.

Bullshiat! I have exprienced almost every item on your list.


Then you choose poorly or got unlucky. But you were born with more advantages than many by being a white male in America. Suck it up.
 
2012-07-23 05:45:05 PM  
For me it comes down to:

Rich people are lucky (one way or another).

The more supportive a society is, the more 'lucky' people you get.

Rich people should pay their share of taxes so our society can be very supportive.

Their share of taxes should be higher percentage of taxes than the working class.
 
2012-07-23 05:45:10 PM  

Teufelaffe: Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]

Conservative Logic: Humans have the same cognitive capabilities as all other animals.

/Yes, they're that stupid.


Actually, that rationale typically comes from the enviors around here.
 
2012-07-23 05:46:00 PM  

mdeesnuts: Who remembers that many teachers?


I feel bad, because I don't remember most of my teachers, but most of them remember me.
 
2012-07-23 05:46:33 PM  

Rincewind53: The subby is screwing with you. Scalzi's post is not in any way a post about taxes, it's a post in defense of Obama's statement that we all got somewhere through the help of others. It's a serious post, not sarcastic in the least bit.


You and Scalzi may be missing the point on why Obama's statements were so ignorant. If people succeed because of other people, society, government or whatever, then everyone should have succeeded to the same degree. If you didn't build your own business why doesn't everyone have a successful business? Disregarding the small percentage of people who succeed because of wealthy parents or the even smaller percentage of people who fail because they are literally brain damaged, everyone has access to the these same resources and opportunities. Some people are simply better at making use of resources and finding opportunities and some people aren't interested in what is usually the hard work and hours required to initially build a successful business. The resources and opportunities are available to all and people from all social and ethnic backgrounds have succeeded. The difference is purely down to the individual which is why it was either stupid or irrelevant for Obama to claim people don't build their own business simply because they are not alone on a deserted island by themself.
 
2012-07-23 05:46:42 PM  
This fellow's essay used the word "I" 129 times. That right there tells you all you need to know about it.
 
2012-07-23 05:47:12 PM  

serial_crusher: Our excessive military budget is one of the few things the teabaggers are OK paying taxes for.


...no, they're not. They're fine with us spending money on it, unlike pretty much everything else, but they still don't wanna pay taxes on it.
 
2012-07-23 05:47:13 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Any tax system that can afford to have people on welfare packing phones that cost more than my last car has taxes that are too high.

/invalidates the invalidation


Brilliant! We should cut them off so they all get jobs by writing "N/A" in the phone number section of their job application.
 
2012-07-23 05:47:19 PM  
I don't think anybody actually read the whole article.
 
2012-07-23 05:47:41 PM  

serial_crusher: So, $240 more over the life of your contract? Depends on how cheap of a car Smeggy Smurf drives, I guess. Either way, pointing out that you ignored one of the largest costs of your phone because of a shiny sticker price, doesn't constitute moving goalposts

You're also assuming that the theoretical welfare recipient in his example is still using a 3 year old phone like you are. I think Smeggy was accusing them of having shiny new phones, not obsolete crap.


I got my phone a month ago when I finally killed the last one. I guess I could have payed $100 for a 4 but, honestly, I'm not one of the people who wanders around with their eyes glued to their phone 24/7. It's funny that you're calling my phone crap when Smeggy would be whining that it's too fancy. Also, the data component isn't the largest component in the cost of the plan.

You also confused the word "theoretical" with "imaginary" when referring to his example.

Just admit that you want people on government assistance to live in misery with no access to any of the comforts or conveniences of modern life and have done with it.
 
2012-07-23 05:47:54 PM  

Teufelaffe: In other news: Reality is now a "social construct."


Have they considered not breaking the law?
 
2012-07-23 05:48:12 PM  

Teufelaffe: kasmel: Or can we say that there is a social construct wherein people believe that white, heterosexual males are privileged, much the same that people believe that women are paid 78 cents on the dollar, and if you're African American you're more likely to end up in jail?

[images.businessweek.com image 405x410]

[www.project.org image 596x326]

In other news: Reality is now a "social construct."


So I should automatically assume that if you're a woman you're underpaid, and if you're black you're going to end up in prison.

Got it.

//Making generalizations is stupid.
///The 'pay gap' is an illusion that's been proven to be grossly inflated over and over again.
////The larger part is class, which he touches on in the article, but somehow glosses over it.
 
2012-07-23 05:49:23 PM  

Via Infinito: What's your favorite color?


Thank you. Chartreuse.
 
2012-07-23 05:49:50 PM  

jst3p: OgreMagi: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.

Bullshiat! I have exprienced almost every item on your list.

Then you choose poorly or got unlucky. But you were born with more advantages than many by being a white male in America. Suck it up.


The only item on that list I would argue against (and I'm a hetero-white-male) is the food/shelter item. Skin color does not affect that. If I'm born white, it doesn't mean I automatically have a house or food.
 
2012-07-23 05:49:54 PM  

MyRandomName: I love this strawman liberals are setting up to defend Obama. Nobody is arguing success happens in a vacuum. The argument is what is responsible for a successful business. A lot of hard work goes into creating a business, the government does not get to say they are mostly responsible for that as Obama implies. Taking a long reading of Obama's inference, everyone would be successful merely because roads exist. That is not the case whatsoever. Individuals utilize public shares to the best of their capacity. The web we know today would not exist without capitalists improving on the darpanet infrastructure.

If Obama wants credit for all successful business, he has to take credit for business that fails as well. For every road that allowed the transport of good there is a regulation that made the market to costly for some to enter; whether it is eminent domain, costly regulations, cost of licensing (hair dressers), etc. Government can help or hinder a business. But it takes an individual to CREATE the business, not government. That is what Obama said wrong, individuals do create business.


Excellent job showing your lack of comprehension and poor execution of reason.

There is a good reason Americans have chosen not to start businesses in Somalia even though they would have no tax liability there.
 
2012-07-23 05:50:32 PM  

jimk777: Rincewind53: The subby is screwing with you. Scalzi's post is not in any way a post about taxes, it's a post in defense of Obama's statement that we all got somewhere through the help of others. It's a serious post, not sarcastic in the least bit.

You and Scalzi may be missing the point on why Obama's statements were so ignorant. If people succeed because of other people, society, government or whatever, then everyone should have succeeded to the same degree. If you didn't build your own business why doesn't everyone have a successful business? Disregarding the small percentage of people who succeed because of wealthy parents or the even smaller percentage of people who fail because they are literally brain damaged, everyone has access to the these same resources and opportunities. Some people are simply better at making use of resources and finding opportunities and some people aren't interested in what is usually the hard work and hours required to initially build a successful business. The resources and opportunities are available to all and people from all social and ethnic backgrounds have succeeded. The difference is purely down to the individual which is why it was either stupid or irrelevant for Obama to claim people don't build their own business simply because they are not alone on a deserted island by themself.


Why is it stupid to point that out? This Randian idea of our "betters" being islands of accomplishment unto themselves is ludicrous and self-serving.

Starting and running a business is one thing, but to ignore the support and safety factors available to someone incorporating in the US is egocentric and false. No man is an island, regardless of what he may think.
 
2012-07-23 05:50:36 PM  
I stopped reading when he started going on about the University of Chicago. That place is an excellent school and provided a wonderful undergraduate experience but it's one reason I wrote off Obama early on. It's great for people who think and function in hypotheticals, but it is fairly impractical.

i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-23 05:50:51 PM  

Ned Stark: roxtar10870: Taxes = theft... What good Might be done with the stolen money doesn't make it moral.
This guy is an idiot.

So, the government doesn't have the right to dispose goods as it sees fit? And isn't ownership merely an exclusive use contract you have with the government re: certain goods? If the government doesn't have the right to use "your" $20 to finance public works, why does it have a right to keep me from using your beach house?
I would posit that if taxes are theft, then property is theft.
Welcome comrade, always glad to see another commie on fark!


fark yeah. We're having a full-on raging kegger at roxtar10870's house. Feel free to trash the place. He can't call the cops because that would be Big Government Interference™ in the private affairs of citizens who just want to get high on bath salts and trash roxtar10870's place.
 
2012-07-23 05:52:55 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Just admit that you want people on government assistance to live in misery with no access to any of the comforts or conveniences of modern life and have done with it.


Oh, my only goal was to point out how wrong you were for pretending that your phone only cost 99 cents, not all the rest of that.
 
2012-07-23 05:53:33 PM  

gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


You don't agree that being born a straight, white male is like hitting the lottery in this country?

Am I on candid camera? Cause you trollin'!
 
2012-07-23 05:53:38 PM  
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

Those of you white males who have supposedly experienced these things... did they happen to you because of your skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or other in-born thing you can't change? No? Then STFU and stop whining.

If you're saying these things because you're short or fat, or have Assburgers, or crippling shyness, or crippling body-odor, then STFU also because those things can be mitigated.

Short or fat people can lift weights. Assburgs or the shy can get therapy. Stank ass people can take a bath and use Axe.
 
2012-07-23 05:53:57 PM  

kasmel: Teufelaffe: kasmel: Or can we say that there is a social construct wherein people believe that white, heterosexual males are privileged, much the same that people believe that women are paid 78 cents on the dollar, and if you're African American you're more likely to end up in jail?

[images.businessweek.com image 405x410]

[www.project.org image 596x326]

In other news: Reality is now a "social construct."

So I should automatically assume that if you're a woman you're underpaid, and if you're black you're going to end up in prison.

Got it.

//Making generalizations is stupid.
///The 'pay gap' is an illusion that's been proven to be grossly inflated over and over again.
////The larger part is class, which he touches on in the article, but somehow glosses over it.


Yes, that's exactly right. By pointing out that the pay gap is real and that, statistically, blacks far outnumber all other ethnic groups in prison, I am totally saying you should make generalizations. *rolls eyes*
 
2012-07-23 05:56:22 PM  

Teufelaffe: Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]

Conservative Logic: Humans have the same cognitive capabilities as all other animals.

/Yes, they're that stupid.


Alternate Conservative Logic: Its just as OK to let people starve as it is let wild animals starve.

/ Social Darwinism, the only thing near the word 'social' in the dictionary that the right approves of.
 
2012-07-23 05:57:24 PM  
Thanks Subby. Good read. I've ordered "Old Man's War".
 
2012-07-23 05:57:39 PM  

Ambitwistor: keypusher: Anyone who thinks Prop. 13 is responsible for California's education problems is regurgitating someone else's talking points and has no actual knowledge of the topic.

Prop. 98

Are you arguing that Prop. 98 cancels out the loss of funding resulting from Prop. 13?


Don't get ahead of yourself. Start by showing a loss of education funding resulting from Prop. 13. But yeah, any argument from Prop. 13 re education pretty much went out the window with Prop. 98.
 
2012-07-23 05:57:46 PM  

Rincewind53: gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

Wow. Turns out I was totally right. You ARE remarkably ignorant about privilege. And your reading comprehension sucks if you read any racism or sexism against white males into Scalzi's post.


Anyone who can read that and see any racism or sexism in it is just too far gone to even bother arguing with.
 
2012-07-23 05:59:25 PM  
I got to where I am today with a lot of hard work. My parents didn't have a lot of money, so I busted my ass in high school to get good grades, and as a result got a few small merit-based scholarships. I also had a job, and lived at home to reduce expenses as an undergraduate, and went to a relatively inexpensive state university. I busted my ass there too, and got good enough grades that getting to grad school wasn't a problem. I busted my ass there, got a PhD, and got a pretty lucrative job as a result, and now have a household income that, while it doesn't make me a 1%er, makes me pretty damn close.

And that was all thanks to my own hard work. Well, that an some great teachers I had in my public school, the fact that there are folks willing to give out scholarships for hard work, the great state universities I attended, and the research I did that was funded with government tax dollars. And the good fortune I had to be born to parents who stressed the need for education and hard work, and who were willing to take time to raise me instead of ship me off to daycare or plop me in front of the TV. Also the sheer luck I had in coming across the right opportunities at the right time. And the fact that being a straight, white male automatically gives me a leg up.

So yeah, apart from all the other hundreds if not thousands of people who helped out and the strokes of good fortune, I did it all by myself.

And so, come April 15, I gripe about paying taxes like everyone else, but I'll take the infrastructure, services, protections, and stable society they offer any day. Without all the shiat they ultimately provide, I wouldn't be where I am today.
 
2012-07-23 05:59:34 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: gerrymander: He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

Just to be clear: You're saying Scalzi was wrong because RICH straight white guy is an easier setting than Regular straight white guy?


I'm saying Scalzi is wrong because his only argument is that straight, white guys ought to feel worse about themselves and where they are in life because they are straight, white, and male.
 
2012-07-23 05:59:42 PM  

serial_crusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Just admit that you want people on government assistance to live in misery with no access to any of the comforts or conveniences of modern life and have done with it.

Oh, my only goal was to point out how wrong you were for pretending that your phone only cost 99 cents, not all the rest of that.


My phone cost $0.99. TCO is marginally higher than a crap land line but that didn't seem to be the gist of his comment.
 
2012-07-23 06:02:10 PM  

gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


I read the article and believe you misunderstood his point.
 
2012-07-23 06:02:31 PM  

jst3p: Then you choose poorly or got unlucky. But you were born with more advantages than many by being a white male in America. Suck it up.


Oh, quit being such a crybaby. People succeed from every class and ethnic group. How rich your parents were or where your ancestors came from is largely irrelevant as to whether you have a successful life. Everyone is born with some advantages and disadvantages. How you take advantage of things and overcome obstacles are the determining factors because almost everyone faces obstacles and almost everyone has some advantages. Who is more likely to succeed, an incredibly stupid white male born in the backwoods of Alaska or a highly intelligent black woman born to a middle class family in NYC?
 
2012-07-23 06:02:37 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: / Social Darwinism, the only thing near the word 'social' in the dictionary that the right approves of.


Not too fond of Darwinism either, but mix them both together and voila: instant societal organizational principle.
 
2012-07-23 06:03:24 PM  
Old Man's War is one of the best new Sci-Fi books there is. The sequel is amazingly good as well.
 
2012-07-23 06:04:02 PM  

gerrymander: Vlad_the_Inaner: gerrymander: He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

Just to be clear: You're saying Scalzi was wrong because RICH straight white guy is an easier setting than Regular straight white guy?

I'm saying Scalzi is wrong because his only argument is that straight, white guys ought to feel worse about themselves and where they are in life because they are straight, white, and male.


"feel worse about themselves" ≠ "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges"

Seriously, did you actually read that other Scalzi article or did you listen to someone else who hated it try to explain it to you?
 
2012-07-23 06:04:10 PM  

gerrymander: Vlad_the_Inaner: gerrymander: He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

Just to be clear: You're saying Scalzi was wrong because RICH straight white guy is an easier setting than Regular straight white guy?

I'm saying Scalzi is wrong because his only argument is that straight, white guys ought to feel worse about themselves and where they are in life because they are straight, white, and male.


Thanks. Fugue states are just fine. Got it.
 
2012-07-23 06:07:50 PM  

Rincewind53: RichieLaw: citation needed.jpeg
vpb: Really? What was that about?

I'm guessing gerrymander is just upset that Scalzi wrote a very good article called "Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is" and he disagrees with the concept, even though the article is 100% correct, 0% racist, and very well-written.


That article was complete bullshiat. His follow up article was snarky bullshiat.
 
2012-07-23 06:07:52 PM  

jimk777: . Everyone is born with some advantages and disadvantages. How you take advantage of things and overcome obstacles are the determining factors because almost everyone faces obstacles and almost everyone has some advantages.


Well then how are we supposed to figure out which people are lazy and stupid without stereotypes?
 
2012-07-23 06:08:10 PM  

RehcamretsneF: This subby obviously didnt read the article.

Apart from being on welfare, taxes did nothing for this man.


Other than helping his mother give birth to him over 3 days via medical doctors at a US military base, and the school lunch programs, and the educational assistance, you got it right. Scalzi got ahead through his own hard work, the help of others, and yes, taxpayer assistance. I suspect nearly all of us are where we are thanks to those three conditions.
 
2012-07-23 06:08:12 PM  

roxtar10870: Taxes = theft

The price you pay for living in a civilized society.

FTFY.
 
2012-07-23 06:08:28 PM  

gerrymander: I'm saying Scalzi is wrong because his only argument is that straight, white guys ought to feel worse about themselves and where they are in life because they are straight, white, and male.


I think his point is that white guys should recognize that maybe, just maybe, we have things just a little easier by virtue of being white guys.
 
2012-07-23 06:09:52 PM  

pxlboy: Why is it stupid to point that out? This Randian idea of our "betters" being islands of accomplishment unto themselves is ludicrous and self-serving.

Starting and running a business is one thing, but to ignore the support and safety factors available to someone incorporating in the US is egocentric and false. No man is an island, regardless of what he may think.


Never said they were "betters". What you seem to keep being blind to is that resources are available to everyone. Some people take advantage of things in their life and some people don't. Some people go to a party school and coast through college and some people bust their balls learning and getting the most advantage of potential contacts and so on while they are at college. Some people have a goal and sacrifice to achieve it and some people really don't want that hassle and would rather just punch a clock and do what they have to because other things are more important to them or they just don't want to do the extra work. In either case it is the individual who makes those choices and as long as they don't whine about it, both are living the life they wish to.
 
2012-07-23 06:11:05 PM  

Teufelaffe: "feel worse about themselves" = "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges"


FTFY. I'll reconsider if you can come up with one example where "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" means "feel better about themselves".
 
2012-07-23 06:11:16 PM  
someone wants higher taxes, and gets the HERO tag.

talk about people voting against their own interests...
 
2012-07-23 06:12:44 PM  

caramba421: Smeggy Smurf: Any tax system that can afford to have people on welfare packing phones that cost more than my last car has taxes that are too high.

/invalidates the invalidation

Brilliant! We should cut them off so they all get jobs by writing "N/A" in the phone number section of their job application.


They can use what I have. An $18 Tracphone. It makes phone calls just fine. No moocher should be using a smart phone. They should be getting a job. If that means uprooting and moving the bread winner to the Dakotas to work the oil fields then do it.
 
2012-07-23 06:12:52 PM  

gerrymander: Teufelaffe: "feel worse about themselves" = "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges"

FTFY. I'll reconsider if you can come up with one example where "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" means "feel better about themselves".


Let me guess, You are not the family member selected to say grace at Thanskgiving.
 
2012-07-23 06:13:02 PM  
Jesus, this thread went from 0 to DERP in one post flat.

Also, -1 for the Hero tag. Stating the obvious doesn't make you a hero just because you're a famous author. Maybe so when threatened by strict government censorship, but people have been saying this for years.
 
2012-07-23 06:13:33 PM  

Teufelaffe: Yes, that's exactly right. By pointing out that the pay gap is real and that, statistically, blacks far outnumber all other ethnic groups in prison, I am totally saying you should make generalizations. *rolls eyes*


"So, the challenge: how to get across the ideas bound up in the word "privilege," in a way that your average straight white man will get, without freaking out about it?"

The issue is that stating that 'white men' are indelibly endowed with some quality or value that makes their lives naturally easier is simplistic and dangerous.

It diminishes all of the actual REASONS why a statement such as 'white men are privileged' can be taken at face value when presented with a statistic or graph.

The simple fact is that people like to lean on statistics without looking behind them to WHY a particular number is higher than the other. Writing it off as a race or gender thing is stupid and lazy. That's they problem I have with it. It is, at its core, no different than sexist or racist viewpoints, and feeds into lazy thinking.

The causes of social striation between gender/race, the facts behind the numbers, are FAR less attributable to whether you have a Y chromosome or the color of your skin, than they are to the resources you had access to growing up and the education you received. You can say that the average African American has access to fewer resources and is less likely to receive a quality education than the average white person. But, while that may be true, it's also about as useful a statistic as the fact that everyone that breathes oxygen eventually dies. The true issue is poverty. You can also say that more African American families, on average, live in poverty. The answer to that is what the fark does it matter? Should we focus on the fact that they're black? Or the fact that they're in poverty? Should we spend extra special attention to 'black poverty'? Are we in some kind of competition? Or should we be fighting the causes of poverty across the board regardless?

This is my issue with his article. Not that I think he's racist or sexist, but that it perpetuates the underlying problem with how we approach pretty much every social debate. We talk around the issue, we don't talk about what can be done about it. We try to find someone to point a finger at. On one side you have people calling African Americans lazy, on the other hand you have people saying that white people inherit privilege with the lack of melanin in their skin. It's stupid, unproductive, and lends absolutely nothing to the conversation.
 
2012-07-23 06:14:29 PM  

keypusher: Don't get ahead of yourself. Start by showing a loss of education funding resulting from Prop. 13. But yeah, any argument from Prop. 13 re education pretty much went out the window with Prop. 98.


The existence of Prop. 98 alone is irrelevant. What matters is whether the funding minimum in Prop. 98 outweighs losses of funding from Prop. 13. And if you don't think Prop. 13 lead to any funding losses in the first place, then Prop. 98 is doubly irrelevant. It's only relevant if you think Prop. 13 did lead to funding losses, but Prop. 98 made up for them. So, if you want to convince someone making a Prop. 13 argument, you have to do so by presenting the cost-benefit comparison between the two propositions, not by merely noting the existing of Prop. 98.

I don't actually care about either proposition or California's education funding, but your logic is lacking.
 
2012-07-23 06:15:20 PM  
The dude is a writer. Try finding someone who started a business next time - even a business like fark.com.

"Without human civilization, nothing you did would be possible."

Great, thanks. That's just sour grapes from liberals who haven't done shiat with their lives.
 
2012-07-23 06:17:46 PM  

jimk777: Rincewind53:You and Scalzi may be missing the point on why Obama's statements were so ignorant. If people succeed because of other people, society, government or whatever, then everyone should have succeeded to the same degree. If you didn't build your own business why doesn't everyone have a successful business? Disregarding the small percentage of people who succeed because of wealthy parents or the even smaller percentage of people who fail because they are literally brain damaged, everyone has access to the these same resources and opportunities. Some people are simply better at making use of resources and finding opportunities and some people aren't interested in what is usually the hard work and hours required to initially build a successful business. The resources and opportunities are available to all and people from all social and ethnic backgrounds have succeeded. The difference is purely down to the individual which is why it was either stupid or irrelevant for Obama to claim people don't build their own business simply because they are not alone on a deserted island by themself.


i added emphasis to one of your points, above. i don't remember scalzi or obama saying this. this is your opinion, not proven fact.
 
2012-07-23 06:17:57 PM  

garkola: The dude is a writer. Try finding someone who started a business next time - even a business like fark.com.


Yeah, writing isn't a real job. And none of the examples Scalzi cites are of any relevance to the upbringing and career trajectories of future businessmen, who are above such petty concerns.
 
2012-07-23 06:18:22 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: They can use what I have. An $18 Tracphone. It makes phone calls just fine. No moocher should be using a smart phone. They should be getting a job. If that means uprooting and moving the bread winner to the Dakotas to work the oil fields then do it.


My iPhone 3 was $0.99, Mr Monopoly. Did they serve you caviar and give you a complimentary blowjob with that $18 phone?
 
2012-07-23 06:19:24 PM  

FuturePastNow: jake_lex: I love when teabaggers think restating the same herp-a-derp a bit more forcefully is "proving liberals wrong.'

John Scalzi is pretty much the opposite of a Teabagger.


So, he takes ball bags in his shiat-hole?
 
2012-07-23 06:20:19 PM  

kidgenius: jst3p: OgreMagi: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.

Bullshiat! I have exprienced almost every item on your list.

Then you choose poorly or got unlucky. But you were born with more advantages than many by being a white male in America. Suck it up.

The only item on that list I would argue against (and I'm a hetero-white-male) is the food/shelter item. Skin color does not affect that. If I'm born white, it doesn't mean I automatically have a house or food.


While it is true that being white does not automatically afford you shelter, being black or hispanic can definitely make it harder to obtain. Do a search for "rent bias" if you doubt it.
 
2012-07-23 06:21:41 PM  

gerrymander: Vlad_the_Inaner: gerrymander: He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

Just to be clear: You're saying Scalzi was wrong because RICH straight white guy is an easier setting than Regular straight white guy?

I'm saying Scalzi is wrong because his only argument is that straight, white guys ought to feel worse about themselves and where they are in life because they are straight, white, and male.


I don't think he's saying that AT ALL. It is not an argument AGAINST being a white, straight guy, it is an argument FOR being aware of the white male privilege in America, asking ourselves why that is and what we can do to foster a more equal and inclusive.....

Wait, why am I bothering with this? You've already proven that you either can't read or are incapable of understanding written material.
 
2012-07-23 06:21:42 PM  

colon_pow: someone wants higher taxes, and gets the HERO tag.

talk about people voting against their own interests...


Your stupidity is amazingly interesting. I wish I knew you in person.
 
2012-07-23 06:23:23 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: gerrymander: Teufelaffe: "feel worse about themselves" = "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges"

FTFY. I'll reconsider if you can come up with one example where "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" means "feel better about themselves".

Let me guess, You are not the family member selected to say grace at Thanskgiving.


You guess incorrectly, and thanks for adding nothing to the discussion with that ad hominem attack!

But in the interest of fairness, I'm happy to open the discussion. Can you, Vlad, come up with one example where a person advocating others "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" in a way that wasn't intended to diminish them?
 
2012-07-23 06:23:39 PM  
Wow, a lot of people didn't really read the article (shocking, I know). Also, quite a few dumbasses in here.
 
2012-07-23 06:25:13 PM  

Teufelaffe: By pointing out that the pay gap is real


Oh and, no. It's not.

In case you don't feel like reading second-hand articles about it. Here's the foreward on a gender wage gap report done for the department of labor requested by the Obama administration. Here's a link to that if you'd like a citation.

An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity
in Wages Between Men and Women

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the
wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively
account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and
thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. These variables
include:
A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to
pay less than full-time work.
A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child
care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who
were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of
children in the home.
1 2
Women, especially working mothers, tend to value "family friendly" workplace policies
more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly,
the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.
Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations
may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD's model and much of the
literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women's Earnings, focus on
wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage
benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation
in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.
In principle, more of the raw wage gap could be explained by including some additional
variables within a single comprehensive analysis that considers all of the factors simultaneously;
however, such an analysis is not feasible to conduct with available data bases. Factors, such as
work experience and job tenure, require data that describe the behavior of individual workers
over extended time periods. The longitudinal data bases that contain such information include
too few workers, however, to support adequate analysis of factors like occupation and industry.
Cross-sectional data bases that include enough workers to enable analysis of factors like
occupation and industry do not collect data on individual workers over long enough periods to
support adequate analysis of factors like work experience and job tenure.
Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous
conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a
multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify
corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be
almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.
 
2012-07-23 06:26:35 PM  

gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


When talking about Straight White Privilege, everyone seems to ignore the fact that straight white people make up the majority of the population, and people tend to favor people who look and act like they do. Some people like to talk about white privilege like its some sort of conspiracy to keep wealth away from minorities.
 
2012-07-23 06:27:00 PM  
An attitude of gratitude.

More people need to have it.
 
2012-07-23 06:27:53 PM  

steamingpile: You don't agree that being born a straight, white male is like hitting the lottery in this country?

Am I on candid camera? Cause you trollin'!


The white people on welfare who happen to outnumber the minorities on welfare would disagree with you. Why are you guys so insistent that under-privileged white people don't exist?
 
2012-07-23 06:29:16 PM  

FuturePastNow: jake_lex: I love when teabaggers think restating the same herp-a-derp a bit more forcefully is "proving liberals wrong.'

John Scalzi is pretty much the opposite of a Teabagger.


He slowly raises his head up until your balls are resting on the top of it?
 
2012-07-23 06:29:35 PM  

gerrymander: Vlad_the_Inaner: gerrymander: Teufelaffe: "feel worse about themselves" = "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges"

FTFY. I'll reconsider if you can come up with one example where "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" means "feel better about themselves".

Let me guess, You are not the family member selected to say grace at Thanskgiving.

You guess incorrectly, and thanks for adding nothing to the discussion with that ad hominem attack!

But in the interest of fairness, I'm happy to open the discussion. Can you, Vlad, come up with one example where a person advocating others "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" in a way that wasn't intended to diminish them?


Sorry the subtly was lost.

Giving 'Thanks' at Thanksgiving is EXACTLY about being aware of what you've got, privileges included, and feeling good about it. Feeling good about that wouldn't diminish anyone.
 
2012-07-23 06:33:04 PM  

Headso: skinnycatullus: WTF is going on in this thread?

total farkers happened to it


^This. The problem with Fark as a whole is the totalfarkers, which is why although I'd like to experience more of Fark I refuse to be a "totalfarker!"
 
2012-07-23 06:36:24 PM  
hahaha.

All his perks I never had. F*** him and f*** our entitlement society.
 
2012-07-23 06:37:25 PM  

kasmel: Here's the foreward on a gender wage gap report done for the department of labor requested by the Obama administration.


The CONSAD report was requested by the Bush administration. Look at the date. Also, it doesn't have the ability to really resolve causal questions. For example, there are more women in part-time jobs, but how much of that observation is attributable to women's free choices in the absence of any discriminatory factors, and how much is attributable to discrimination? The report can't say. (And either way, there is a wage gap, the dispute is just about what causes it.)
 
2012-07-23 06:37:35 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.


But you DO know what it is like to be a complete moron.
 
2012-07-23 06:38:21 PM  
Nobody ever makes it entirely on his own. But the inference, started by Elizabeth Warren and plagiarized by Obama, is that the government is responsible for everyone's success. That is where they are wrong.

The government, in the U.S., does not own the means of production and does not create wealth. When it builds a road to go to your factory, it does so with tax dollars that come to it as a result of economic activity in the private sector. All government spending is funded by taxing the private sector or by printing money, which is a debt that must be repaid, someday, by the private sector. In the U.S., it is only the success of the private sector that allows the government to be as generous as it is.

Scalzi also received welfare benefits of various sorts. Once again, the government has no money of its own to hand out, that money comes from private sector productivity. If I give a hungry person something to eat from my own kitchen, that is charity and that is laudable. Would I be viewed as laudable if I broke into my neighbor's pantry and gave the hungry food from there? No, I would be considered a thief. At the very least, the person from whom I stole the food might not think my beneficiary worthy of his beneficence and may have wished to give it to someone else. Just because the government has passed laws that permit them to confiscate private productivity and hand it out to those it deems worthy does not make it a moral activity. It may be legal, it is not moral. In addition to stealing in order to look charitable, it robs the productive of the incentive, and in some cases, the ability to be charitable.

In communist or socialist countries, the government owns everything and is perfectly entitled to pass it out as it wishes. We weren't originally set up that way. It is also instructive that poverty has not significantly declined since the inception of the war on poverty. The biggest dips in the poverty rate coincide not with government programs but with robust private sector economic activity.
 
2012-07-23 06:39:12 PM  

ricochet4: jimk777: Rincewind53:You and Scalzi may be missing the point on why Obama's statements were so ignorant. If people succeed because of other people, society, government or whatever, then everyone should have succeeded to the same degree. If you didn't build your own business why doesn't everyone have a successful business? Disregarding the small percentage of people who succeed because of wealthy parents or the even smaller percentage of people who fail because they are literally brain damaged, everyone has access to the these same resources and opportunities. Some people are simply better at making use of resources and finding opportunities and some people aren't interested in what is usually the hard work and hours required to initially build a successful business. The resources and opportunities are available to all and people from all social and ethnic backgrounds have succeeded. The difference is purely down to the individual which is why it was either stupid or irrelevant for Obama to claim people don't build their own business simply because they are not alone on a deserted island by themself.

i added emphasis to one of your points, above. i don't remember scalzi or obama saying this. this is your opinion, not proven fact.


Umm, no it is pretty much fact. The overall resources of society are there for everyone. Anyone who is not stupid and willing to dedicate themselves to the effort required could get a good scholarship to a good school for example. Everyone is born with some specific advantages or disadvantages that would affect them being able to accomplish that. Focusing on any one factor is ridiculous and irrelevant. Who is more likely to get a scholarship to Harvard, the white male with an IQ of 70 born to a single mother in backwoods Arkansas or the genius and multi-talented black woman born to a wealthy family in NYC? Outside of such extreme examples the point is that the same general pool so to speak of resources are available to everyone in our society.

Sure the specific resources or opportunities may be different but the overall benefits of living in America are there for everyone and large numbers of people from every social and ethnic group have succeeded. The difference is up to the individual and what they make of the advantages of American society.
 
2012-07-23 06:40:32 PM  

badaboom: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.

But you DO know what it is like to be a complete moron.


privelage?
 
2012-07-23 06:41:02 PM  

gerrymander: Rincewind53: Wow. Turns out I was totally right. You ARE remarkably ignorant about privilege. And your reading comprehension sucks if you read any racism or sexism against white males into Scalzi's post.

The racism and sexism is present in the selective attention. If he had done an entire series of posts wherein different audiences each had their own privilege proclaimed as "easy mode" with an attendant examination of how they get benefits they might not merit, I wouldn't be complaining. (And if he did after I stopped reading, please say so, and I'll do my homework and reconsider.)

But parenthetical note aside, I'm fairly confident he didn't -- because like you, he doesn't actually acknowledge that different people may gain different societal benefits they don't merit in different situations. (Take these informal dating studies, for example. Not the results expected from the "straight, white male privilege" model, to say the least.) The elitism Scalzi displays is a modern form of what used to be called "the white man's burden", bringing enlightenment to the savages. That he's casting other white men in the role of the savages doesn't make the racism any less appalling.

That you can't recognize it is just embarrassing.


After reading the "studies" you link to, it appears that you may be angry that "white male" doesn't get you as far as "attractive white male"...
 
2012-07-23 06:41:08 PM  
Oh GOD I am a white male !!! I should enslave myself to the system and give away everything I ever earn so I may be worthy to be walked on!
 
2012-07-23 06:41:14 PM  
Hey, gerrymander, you seem to have need some help with the situation you find yourself in here. Believe it or not, there is a way to save face and redeem your credibility! Since you apparently don't know how, I'll give you complete, step-by-step instructions:

• Step 1: Click in the "Comment:" text area below this thread where you type in your responses. I assume that you already have your "Login:" and "Password:" entered. You should see a flashing text bar cursor in the upper left corner of that text area.

• Step 2a: Look at your keyboard. Over on the left side, second row from the bottom, you'll see a large key. It's labeled "Shift". Press and hold this [Shift ] key with your left pinky finger.

• Step 2b: While still holding that key down, hover your right index fingertip over the top row of keys on the typewriter-like alphanumeric portion of the keyboard. These are all small keys. Most of them have numerals (digits) as their bottom labels, and a punctuation symbol as the top label. The digits are in numerical order (except that zero [0] follows nine [9]), so it's easy to find the spot we're looking for: you need to hover the fingertip between two keys, namely, the one labeled [*8] and the one next to it labeled [(9] (the labels here are shown horizontally separated, but actually they're vertically separated: the punctuation symbol is on top of the digit). Now, move your fingertip down one row, and it should be hovering over a key labeled [I]. Press and release that key, then release the [Shift ] key. You should see "I" appear in the "Comments:" edit box, with the bar cursor now flashing just to the right of it.

• Step 2c: Finally, with either thumb, press and release the widest key on the keyboard, one that has no label at all. This is called the "space bar." You should see no text change in the box, but the flashing bar cursor should move slightly to the right, a very short distance away from the "I" that you created in Step 2b.

• Step 3a: Remember how we used the top row of number keys to help find a letter key in Step 2b? Well, let's do it again: this time, we need to hover our left index fingertip between the [@2] and [#3] keys, then move down one row. The key that your fingertip should now be hovering over should be labeled [W]. Press and release it, and remember it because we're going to need it again in Step 4a. You should now see a "w" appear a short distance to the right of the "I" with a small space between them, and the flashing bar cursor now just to the right of the newly-created "w."

Step 3b: With your left fingertip still on or above the [W] key, move it down one row and to the left one key so that hovers over the [A] key. Press and release it, and voila! "a" has now been added just after the "w", and the flashing bar cursor is now just to the right of the newly-created "a"!

Step 3c: Now move your left fingertip one key to the right from the [A] key that you just pressed. This key is the [S] key. Press and release it, and "s" gets added to the right of the "wa" which is a short distance from the "I" from Step 1. So far, you should see "I was" with the flashing bar cursor just to the right of the newly-created "s"!

Step 3d is the same as Step 2c, namely, press the space bar. Again, the flashing bar cursor should move a short distance to the right, visibly separated from the "s."

Step 4a: Remember how I told you back in Step 3a that we'd need the [W] key again? Now's the time! If you forgot where it is, fear not: your left fingertip should still be hovering near the [S] key, and it's one row up and slightly to the left of that! Press and release it. You should now see a second "w" appear a short distance to the right of the "s" with a small space between them, and the flashing bar cursor now just to the right of the newly-created "w."

Step 4b: Move your left fingertip not one, but two, keys to the right of the [W] key. It should now be hovering over the [R] key. Press and release it. You should now see an "r" appear just to the right of the "w", and the flashing bar cursor now just to the right of the newly-created "r."

Step 4c: If you haven't moved your right hand much since Step 2b, its index fingertip should still be hovering over or near the [I] key. The one that we want now is just to the right of that: the [O] key. If you lost track of that, you can find it easily by using the numbers trick: this key is just one row below the space between the [(9] and [)0] keys. You should know what to do by now: press and release it, and watch the "o" appear, with the bar cursor moving to just past it.

Step 4d: Now it gets a bit tricky. Move the right index fingertip not just one, but two, keys to the left, so that it's hovering over the [U] key. That's not the one we want to press, though: now, move the fingertip down not one, but two rows. It should now be hovering over the [N] key. Press and release it. "n" appears.

Step 4e: Back to the left index fingertip, which we last left in Step 4b hovering over the [R] key. Move it over one to the right so that it now hovers over the [T] key, then down one row so that it hovers over the [G] key. Press and release that. "g" appears.

Step 4f: Actually, your message as it exists now would be good enough for most FARKers, but just to satisfy the grammar Nazis, move the left fingertip (which should still be hovering over the [N] key) three keys to the right, so that it hovers over a key labeled [>.]. Press and release that.

Step 5: Click [ Add Comment ]. If "Preview before post" was checked, click [ Add Comment ] again.

There. That wasn't so hard, now, was it? Why do so few FARKers (or people on other Internet opinion forums) ever do this?
 
2012-07-23 06:41:53 PM  
The first four chapters of Redshirts suck.
 
2012-07-23 06:42:01 PM  

gerrymander: (Take these informal dating studies, for example. Not the results expected from the "straight, white male privilege" model, to say the least.)


From your link: "White women prefer white men to the exclusion of everyone else--and Asian and Hispanic women prefer them even more exclusively. These three types of women only respond well to white men. More significantly, these groups' reply rates to non-whites is terrible."

and "They respond less than any other group, and they respond least of all to black women."

So yeah, I'm pretty comfortable saying those results are precisely what is expected in a situation of white male privilege. But I assume you gave this post the same kind of careful reading you gave to the Sclazi post you're complaining about, yes?
 
2012-07-23 06:42:35 PM  

jst3p: Then you choose poorly or got unlucky. But you were born with more advantages than many by being a white male in America. Suck it up


You were born with many advantages just being born in the US.

And parental income has been a better indicator than race/sex in this country for a long time, but "white guilt" has such a nice ring to it...
 
2012-07-23 06:43:22 PM  

liam76: And parental income has been a better indicator than race/sex in this country for a long time, but "white guilt" has such a nice ring to it...


/applause
 
2012-07-23 06:43:32 PM  

Mr. Right: Nobody ever makes it entirely on his own. But the inference, started by Elizabeth Warren and plagiarized by Obama, is that the government is responsible for everyone's success. That is where they are wrong.


The government isn't wholly responsible for everyone's success. But neither is the private sector. Nor the individual. That's Scalzi's point. Nor was his essay aimed solely at the virtues of government; he also highlighted business connections and other examples.

In communist or socialist countries, the government owns everything and is perfectly entitled to pass it out as it wishes.

You know how I know that you have no idea what socialism is?

/remaining "taxation is theft" nonsense snipped
 
2012-07-23 06:43:55 PM  
For an accurate view of what it REALLY feels like to get caught in the Welfare trap, I suggest "Uncle Sam's Plantation" by Star Parker.

Parker clawed her way out of the ghetto, and knows what she is talking about. She has been there---and had that done to her.

Unlike most of you Farkers. . . . . . . . .
 
2012-07-23 06:44:48 PM  
I got here on my own. Fark you
 
2012-07-23 06:45:32 PM  
"There is a flip side to this as well. I have helped others too. I am financially successful now; I pay a lot of taxes. I don't mind because I know how taxes helped me to get to the fortunate position I am in today. I hope the taxes I pay will help some military wife give birth, a mother who needs help feed her child, help another child learn and fall in love with the written word, and help still another get through college."

The more money you make, the more you'll pay in taxes. If you don't like it, then get a job that doesn't pay as much. I'm sure they'll have no problem replacing you.
 
2012-07-23 06:45:33 PM  

liam76: jst3p: Then you choose poorly or got unlucky. But you were born with more advantages than many by being a white male in America. Suck it up

You were born with many advantages just being born in the US.

And parental income has been a better indicator than race/sex in this country for a long time, but "white guilt privilege" has such a nice ring to it...


Meant to type it like this...oops.
 
2012-07-23 06:45:45 PM  

Ambitwistor: The government isn't wholly responsible for everyone's success. But neither is the private sector. Nor the individual. That's Scalzi's point.


That is the point where he loses credibility......its the individual's response to the lot they have been dealt in life.....Some people are born bigger, stronger, better looking, smarter etc.....THATS LIFE its what you make of it.
 
2012-07-23 06:46:43 PM  

Old Smokie: I got here on my own. Fark you


Except of course for the personal assistance who has to change your diapers. But ya, otherwise, on your own big guy.
 
2012-07-23 06:48:04 PM  

Monongahela Misfit: So being honest, and objective to a fault, regarding Your experience of reality is wrong, or bad? Especially when You are intent on changing the status quo to better reflect the vision You have of what is right?


He's not being objective to a fault. If he was, he wouldn't be eliding a complex interaction of genetic and cultural behaviors into an undifferentiated paste labeled "privilege", or negating the role of the individual in favor of broad social constructs.

But I agree that "intent to change the status quo to his vision" is the goal.
 
2012-07-23 06:49:24 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.


This makes me chuckle every time I see it.
 
2012-07-23 06:50:38 PM  
Hero? So big govt obamoron equals hero? Wow, no wonder our soldiers, police and firefighters are treated so poorly by the loony left.
Soldiers are left jobless by this administration after serving our great country. Cops are spit on and taunted by the ows stinkhippies and firefighters lose their firehouses so some dem politician can give money to the taker class in exchange for votes.
You libs should look up the word hero or get an adult to help you with the real meaning.
 
2012-07-23 06:51:27 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.


I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.Just out of the Army in 1986, applied to be a policeman in Indianapolis. Was told by the person taking the applications at the City-County building, "If you're not black, or a woman, you're wasting your time. They're not going to hire you."

I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.

I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life. Was chased out of Willard Park in Indianapolis by a group of knife wielding blacks for attempting to play basketball while being white.

I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.

I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition. I could banter on this subject for not having my good work noticed, etc., but this one sounds llike someone is crying a little too much

I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter. Lived at no less than 10 different addresses while growing up. I remember stretches of living in the station wagon, and being dropped off at school for days at a time while my cash strapped parents were trying to find a place to live. One thanksgiving, all my mom had in the kitchen was a loaf of bread, some sugar, and some butter. We had fried toast with sugar on it, because that was a farkin' treat for us.

and NOT ONCE did my parents go on the dole from the government.


THAT is what "guilt ridden rich libtard white privelage" means.

I hate stupid libtard phuqs. Not you regular libtards, but the ones that think I should feel guilty for being who I am. Walk in my "white privilaged" shoes for a bit, then think about the stupid list you came up with.
 
2012-07-23 06:51:38 PM  

gerrymander: Monongahela Misfit: So being honest, and objective to a fault, regarding Your experience of reality is wrong, or bad? Especially when You are intent on changing the status quo to better reflect the vision You have of what is right?

He's not being objective to a fault. If he was, he wouldn't be eliding a complex interaction of genetic and cultural behaviors into an undifferentiated paste labeled "privilege", or negating the role of the individual in favor of broad social constructs.

But I agree that "intent to change the status quo to his vision" is the goal.


Because everyone out there is just as happy to hire Jamal as they are to hire Greg: Link
 
2012-07-23 06:51:50 PM  
Third that Old Man's War is a great read. Cory Doctorow, however, who is also mentioned in the article, is freaking awful. The only reason I kept reading his Makers was in the hope that all of the main characters would be slowly tortured to death.
 
2012-07-23 06:52:24 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Smeggy Smurf: They can use what I have. An $18 Tracphone. It makes phone calls just fine. No moocher should be using a smart phone. They should be getting a job. If that means uprooting and moving the bread winner to the Dakotas to work the oil fields then do it.

My iPhone 3 was $0.99, Mr Monopoly. Did they serve you caviar and give you a complimentary blowjob with that $18 phone?


You damned right they offered it. Instead of taking it I let a local Air Farce puke have it.

/USCG FTW
 
2012-07-23 06:52:32 PM  

jimk777: Umm, no it is pretty much fact. The overall resources of society are there for everyone. Anyone who is not stupid and willing to dedicate themselves to the effort required could get a good scholarship to a good school for example. Everyone is born with some specific advantages or disadvantages that would affect them being able to accomplish that. Focusing on any one factor is ridiculous and irrelevant. Who is more likely to get a scholarship to Harvard, the white male with an IQ of 70 born to a single mother in backwoods Arkansas or the genius and multi-talented black woman born to a wealthy family in NYC? Outside of such extreme examples the point is that the same general pool so to speak of resources are available ...


restating your opinion emphatically is not any kind of proof. let's agree to disagree.
 
2012-07-23 06:53:06 PM  

Tumunga: I hate stupid libtard phuqs. Not you regular libtards, but the ones that think I should feel guilty for being who I am. Walk in my "white privilaged" shoes for a bit, then think about the stupid list you came up with.


Bravo for fighting what may or may not be bic lighter stupid with genuine blowtorch derp. Way to go there guy.
 
2012-07-23 06:53:31 PM  

skinnycatullus: WTF is going on in this thread?


fta: I hope the taxes I pay will help some military wife give birth

He doesn't seem to know the basics of biology. But taxes can do it all!
 
2012-07-23 06:53:35 PM  
Where's the cliff notes?
 
2012-07-23 06:55:03 PM  

Virtue: That is the point where he loses credibility......


Loses "credibility"? Is his point (that success is a function of both external and internal factors) factually untrue, or do you just disagree with his philosophy? If the latter, how does that affect his "credibility"?

its the individual's response to the lot they have been dealt in life.....

Is important, but not the only relevant factor to that individual's success. Which again, was Scalzi's point.
 
2012-07-23 06:56:20 PM  

jmr61: Where's the cliff notes?


no man is an island and we all (especially the wealthy) use the advantages granted by living in our society to become successful.
 
2012-07-23 06:58:03 PM  

Ambitwistor: Is important, but not the only relevant factor to that individual's success. Which again, was Scalzi's point.


Which is completely IRRELEVANT......Once again some people get dealt a better hand in life....its what you do with it that counts.....crying about how you got a bad hand is the crap every one is tired of listening to.
 
2012-07-23 06:58:21 PM  
Title of the article: A Self-Made Man Looks At How He Made It

First sentence: To begin, my mother and father are responsible for me existing at all

Okay, so he already refuted his premise. He was not self-made. His parents made him.

He DIDN'T do it by himself and at some point he probably used A BRIDGE!

0bama is right. This guy is a loser.
 
2012-07-23 06:59:32 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.


And that attitude is why you will remain bitter, poor person for the rest of your miserable life.
 
2012-07-23 07:00:22 PM  

timujin: Odd reaction from the first couple of posters... but anyway, this is pretty much a well-worded retread of things that have been said here many times. I don't care who you are or what you do, you didn't get there "on your own".


Right about that. I owe my Mom plenty. She worked 2-3 jobs constantly while I was growing up and going to college.

I worked my way through college, with help from my mom.

I only owe 1 person in this world anything. Everything else I got on my own by working hard.

As to the tax thing. My big issue is that people making more than me should not pay less, in percent of their income, than I do.

That is clearly BS. Mitt Romney and all his ilk should STFU and pay their fair share.
 
2012-07-23 07:01:27 PM  
That guy is a real human being.

Awesome
 
2012-07-23 07:01:54 PM  

Virtue: Ambitwistor: Is important, but not the only relevant factor to that individual's success. Which again, was Scalzi's point.

Which is completely IRRELEVANT......Once again some people get dealt a better hand in life....its what you do with it that counts.....crying about how you got a bad hand is the crap every one is tired of listening to.


And when one group systematically gets a worse hand, generation after generation? Let me guess: not your problem?

You know, you can accept that the game is systematically unfair without selling all your stuff in the bargain.

You aren't interested in the game being made more fair (which would let the truly gifted rise to the top). You must not be that gifted, I guess. What have you got to lose?
 
2012-07-23 07:02:18 PM  

Voiceofreason01: jmr61: Where's the cliff notes?

no man is an island and we all (especially the wealthy) use the advantages granted by living in our society to become successful.


In other words, common sense.
 
2012-07-23 07:02:37 PM  
He's gotta be wrong.

The Republicans have told us that all government is a worthless waste of money and never helped anybody unless it was blowing things up and killing brown and yellow people.

And if the financial geniuses that make up the Republican Party today say something, it must be true.
 
2012-07-23 07:03:03 PM  

Pincy: Voiceofreason01: jmr61: Where's the cliff notes?

no man is an island and we all (especially the wealthy) use the advantages granted by living in our society to become successful.

In other words, common sense.


hence the wharrgarbl in response.
 
2012-07-23 07:03:26 PM  

ph0rk: You aren't interested in the game being made more fair


Who gets to decide what's fair?
 
2012-07-23 07:04:25 PM  
The retard contingent is strong here. Many additions to the ignore list, thanks.

Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]


Soooooo people are animals?
Did you actually post this?
Who are you saying are animals?
I'm surprised you didn't put a picture of a monkey there.
Asshole.
You're that stupid.

Assholes always like to pretend that EVERYONE is taking advantage of the situation,
and disregard that all people aren't assholes like them.
 
2012-07-23 07:04:36 PM  

Virtue: ph0rk: You aren't interested in the game being made more fair

Who gets to decide what's fair?


That's an empirical question - are resources like income and prestige distributed according to motivation and ability? No? The deck is stacked.
 
2012-07-23 07:04:40 PM  

ph0rk: Tumunga: I hate stupid libtard phuqs. Not you regular libtards, but the ones that think I should feel guilty for being who I am. Walk in my "white privilaged" shoes for a bit, then think about the stupid list you came up with.

Bravo for fighting what may or may not be bic lighter stupid with genuine blowtorch derp. Way to go there guy.


Thanks!
 
2012-07-23 07:05:13 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Giving 'Thanks' at Thanksgiving is EXACTLY about being aware of what you've got, privileges included, and feeling good about it. Feeling good about that wouldn't diminish anyone.


I disagree. When a person speaks for himself (or as part of a self-inclusive group, such as a family Thanksgiving per your example, or a church congregation) about being aware of privileges, it can be humbling without being diminishing.

When a person speaks to others about their need to be aware of privilege, without identifying as part of that group, it is intended as a brickbat -- always and every time, in my experience. (Now, as my experience is far from total, I'm willing to grant I may be overlooking something, which is why I'm open to a counter-example. That we've gotten this far without one is indicative.)

Scalzi's post is explicitly of the "to others" variety. He's not convincing himself, or including himself. He is trying to convert the heathens who "just don't get it" and therefore need a metaphor dumbed down to their brute male-gamer mindset. His intent is to diminish a category of others.
 
2012-07-23 07:05:29 PM  

ph0rk: That's an empirical question - are resources like income and prestige distributed according to motivation and ability? No? The deck is stacked.


Which in no way shape or form addresses the question
 
2012-07-23 07:06:11 PM  

Tumunga: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.

[...]

I do know what it's like to go without food or shelter. Lived at no less than 10 different addresses while growing up. I remember stretches of living in the station wagon, and being dropped off at school for days at a time while my cash strapped parents were trying to find a place to live. One thanksgiving, all my mom had in the kitchen was a loaf of bread, some sugar, and some butter. We had fried toast with sugar on it, because that was a farkin' treat for us.

and NOT ONCE did my parents go on the dole from the government.


wow, you must be real proud of your parents for letting you go hungry rather than going on the dole. bright decision makers, there. good job.

(by the way, i also went hungry as a kid and had periods of vagrancy and uncertain housing. but my parents cared more about me having nutritious food to eat and a safe place to sleep than they did about hurting their egos by "going on the dole".)
 
2012-07-23 07:06:23 PM  
The idea that we need government to keep a system of laws, contracts and defense does not empower government to turn us into spigots which they can then turn in any which way. It also means that spending should be a function of revenue, not the other way around.
 
2012-07-23 07:06:24 PM  

Primum: I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

Those of you white males who have supposedly experienced these things... did they happen to you because of your skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or other in-born thing you can't change? No? Then STFU and stop whining.

If you're saying these things because you're short or fat, or have Assburgers, or crippling shyness, or crippling body-odor, then STFU also because those things can be mitigated.

Short or fat people can lift weights. Assburgs or the shy can get therapy. Stank ass people can take a bath and use Axe.


Do you actually believe these things only occur because of skin color? So my calling you a whiney ass for this post is only because you're not white. Being a whiney ass would probably never figure into that equation would it?
 
2012-07-23 07:06:31 PM  

gerrymander: Teufelaffe: "feel worse about themselves" = "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges"

FTFY. I'll reconsider if you can come up with one example where "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" means "feel better about themselves".


I'll take a stab at it. "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" = "feel better about themselves"

/works for me, every time.
 
2012-07-23 07:06:34 PM  

Virtue: ph0rk: That's an empirical question - are resources like income and prestige distributed according to motivation and ability? No? The deck is stacked.

Which in no way shape or form addresses the question


I just gave you the terms of fair. Why do you need a "decider"?
 
2012-07-23 07:06:46 PM  

Ambitwistor: kasmel: Here's the foreward on a gender wage gap report done for the department of labor requested by the Obama administration.

The CONSAD report was requested by the Bush administration. Look at the date.

Didn't see that, the article I found it in was made later.

/Damn you reading!

Also, it doesn't have the ability to really resolve causal questions. For example, there are more women in part-time jobs, but how much of that observation is attributable to women's free choices in the absence of any discriminatory factors, and how much is attributable to discrimination? The report can't say. (And either way, there is a wage gap, the dispute is just about what causes it.)

The amount unaccounted for falls into the range of statistical error. 4-7%.

I support the lily ledbetter act for enforcing equal pay, but I do not believe that there's a substantial influence of discrimination at fault for the discrepancy. I agree that women should be paid the same for the same work provided that they have the same qualifications and experience. What we should be doing, instead of whining about discrimination that we are assuming, and using numbers that are inflated to make the problem seem larger than it is, is actually address the very real and obvious differences in what women and men look for in jobs, and see if we can make THOSE things more equitable.

First and foremost, health insurance tied to employment means that mothers to be or women looking to be pregnant are more likely to be looking for dependable, good, health insurance than a raise. Decoupling health insurance from employment should go a long way to opening up the labor market for women as regards those choices.

And that's just one example. There are very real things that we can focus on to address the discrepancies such that men and women can compete in the labor market on more equal footing, rather than just blaming it on old white men looking down their noses at women.

Once we've addressed the things we CAN identify, then we can further look into what remains. Fix the problems we can see and know from empirical evidence, don't go making things up to explain the ones we can't yet.

 
2012-07-23 07:07:24 PM  

ph0rk: I just gave you the terms of fair. Why do you need a "decider"?


Answer the question who gets to decide what's fair?
 
2012-07-23 07:07:44 PM  
kasmel:

sigh...html fail...it's the end of my day, what do you want from me?
 
2012-07-23 07:11:48 PM  

Virtue: ph0rk: I just gave you the terms of fair. Why do you need a "decider"?

Answer the question who gets to decide what's fair?


Me, because you're apparently not capable of figuring it out.
 
2012-07-23 07:12:34 PM  

ph0rk: Me, because you're apparently not capable of figuring it out.


Finally a straight answer......so You get to be the Judge of the world eh?
 
2012-07-23 07:12:34 PM  

Teufelaffe: Cybernetic: what_now: Reader, I married her
I don't know who this guy is, but I just fell in love with him.
If you like sci-fi at all, read Old Man's War. In fact, even if you don't like sci-fi, read it anyway. It's an excellent book.

Seconded and thirded.


lulfas: Old Man's War is one of the best new Sci-Fi books there is. The sequel is amazingly good as well.



It appears to me that the purpose of this guy's article was to plug his book, and it worked.
 
2012-07-23 07:13:07 PM  

llpk79: gerrymander: Teufelaffe: "feel worse about themselves" = "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges"

FTFY. I'll reconsider if you can come up with one example where "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" means "feel better about themselves".

I'll take a stab at it. "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" = "feel better about themselves"

/works for me, every time.


You are assumimg they feel bad (and feel this compulsion to feel better) in the first place.
 
2012-07-23 07:14:43 PM  

Virtue: ph0rk: Me, because you're apparently not capable of figuring it out.

Finally a straight answer......so You get to be the Judge of the world eh?


Is inability to detect unfairness really the issue, here?

We don't have a meritocracy, that is plain and obvious to anyone who isn't trying to argue they bootstrapped their way to the top.
 
2012-07-23 07:15:32 PM  
Which came first?

The maggot or the fly.

3.bp.blogspot.com


Has anybody asked yet what the heck is going on in this thread?
 
2012-07-23 07:17:42 PM  

clowncar on fire: llpk79: gerrymander: Teufelaffe: "feel worse about themselves" = "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges"

FTFY. I'll reconsider if you can come up with one example where "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" means "feel better about themselves".

I'll take a stab at it. "be more aware and appreciative of their privileges" = "feel better about themselves"

/works for me, every time.

You are assumimg they feel bad (and feel this compulsion to feel better) in the first place.


You are assuming that one must feel bad to feel better.
 
2012-07-23 07:18:02 PM  

Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]



Animals aren't going to riot and rob your ass if they get hungry.
 
2012-07-23 07:18:21 PM  

ph0rk: Is inability to detect unfairness really the issue, here?


Absolutely it is because FAIRNESS / UNFAIRNESS is COMPLETELY subjective and retaliative.
 
2012-07-23 07:18:39 PM  

gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


Hi,
I am white,straight,male and i live in a modern western country.If nothing else Scalzi was actually sugarcoating it.
We get to play on easy mode and we get to do it with a cheat code called "Socioeconomic Supremacy".
 
2012-07-23 07:20:01 PM  

Mr. Right: Nobody ever makes it entirely on his own. But the inference, started by Elizabeth Warren and plagiarized by Obama, is that the government is responsible for everyone's success. That is where they are wrong.

The government, in the U.S., does not own the means of production and does not create wealth. When it builds a road to go to your factory, it does so with tax dollars that come to it as a result of economic activity in the private sector. All government spending is funded by taxing the private sector or by printing money, which is a debt that must be repaid, someday, by the private sector. In the U.S., it is only the success of the private sector that allows the government to be as generous as it is.

Scalzi also received welfare benefits of various sorts. Once again, the government has no money of its own to hand out, that money comes from private sector productivity. If I give a hungry person something to eat from my own kitchen, that is charity and that is laudable. Would I be viewed as laudable if I broke into my neighbor's pantry and gave the hungry food from there? No, I would be considered a thief. At the very least, the person from whom I stole the food might not think my beneficiary worthy of his beneficence and may have wished to give it to someone else. Just because the government has passed laws that permit them to confiscate private productivity and hand it out to those it deems worthy does not make it a moral activity. It may be legal, it is not moral. In addition to stealing in order to look charitable, it robs the productive of the incentive, and in some cases, the ability to be charitable.

In communist or socialist countries, the government owns everything and is perfectly entitled to pass it out as it wishes. We weren't originally set up that way. It is also instructive that poverty has not significantly declined since the inception of the war on poverty. The biggest dips in the poverty rate coincide not with government program ...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

 
2012-07-23 07:22:17 PM  
coloradoright.files.wordpress.com

Part of the legacy of "white privelage"...

Also, see history of Ireland, Scotland, France... just pick up a book on European history.
 
2012-07-23 07:25:50 PM  

cynispasm: Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]


Animals aren't going to riot and rob your ass if they get hungry.


You've never been in area of drought or extended deep freeze, have you?
 
2012-07-23 07:25:51 PM  

BeSerious: The retard contingent is strong here.


This. Although I think calling them "retarded" is an insult to actual developmentally disabled people, who in general do not whine about being put upon nearly as much as the Fark Oppressed Straight White Male Club.

Straight white guys do have it awfully rough here in America. They're practically second-class citizens. If only they had people in leadership positions to look to as examples, to let them know that it is possible for people who look like them to succeed.
 
2012-07-23 07:27:56 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Any tax system that can afford to have people on welfare packing phones that cost more than my last car has taxes that are too high.

/invalidates the invalidation


There's a fine line between hyperbole and utter bullshiat, and you just stormed across it like Caesar crossing the Rubicon.
 
2012-07-23 07:32:07 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: BeSerious: The retard contingent is strong here.

This. Although I think calling them "retarded" is an insult to actual developmentally disabled people, who in general do not whine about being put upon nearly as much as the Fark Oppressed Straight White Male Club.

Straight white guys do have it awfully rough here in America. They're practically second-class citizens. If only they had people in leadership positions to look to as examples, to let them know that it is possible for people who look like them to succeed secede.


/what the people they look up to are more likely to propose
 
2012-07-23 07:32:32 PM  

Magnanimous_J: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: THAT is what "white privelage" means.

That's wealth privilege.


Poor whites don't generally accept their lack of privilege. Conservative ideology and all.
 
2012-07-23 07:34:18 PM  
I don't know if Federal Taxes are too high, but I do know the Federal Government has a tremendous amount of waste. I also know that Congress likes to spend our money like a sailor on shore leave. I would like these two things to stop before we talk about raising more revenue.
I realize we probably need to do both raise revenue and streamline/cut costs but lets do the latter first. Because in my lifetime I have never seen our government really streamline and tighten their belt.
 
2012-07-23 07:36:06 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

Having read the blog post in question: It's okay. You can continue to enjoy Scalzi. I think it's pretty obvious that Assberger's counts as a disability, so clearly the blog doesn't apply to you.


Anyone read his reply?
I'll repost it for those that refuse to read him because of butthurt.


Lowest Difficulty Setting" Follow-Up
MAY 17, 2012 BY JOHN SCALZI
It's been a couple of days since I've posted the "Lowest Difficulty Setting" piece, and it's been fun and interesting watching the Intarweebs basically explode over it, especially the subclass of Straight White Males who cannot abide the idea that their lives play out on a fundamentally lower difficulty setting than everyone else's, and have spun themselves up in tight, angry circles because I dared to suggest that they do. Those dudes are cracking me up, and also making me a little sad.
There have been some general classes of statement/questions about the piece both on the site and elsewhere on the Internet, that I would like to address, so I'll do that here. Understand I am paraphrasing the questions/statements. In no particular order:
1. I fundamentally disagree with every single thing you said!
That's fine. It happens.
2. Your metaphor/analogy is good, except for [insert thing that commenter finds not good about the metaphor/analogy]
Well, yes. Metaphors are not perfect; it's why they're metaphors and not the thing the metaphor describes. Likewise analogies break down. I thought the "lowest difficulty setting" description worked well enough for what I wanted to say, but I don't think it's perfect. "Perfect" wasn't what I was aiming for. And of course, if you don't think it's the right metaphor/analogy, that's fine. Please, make a different and better one - the more ways we can make a general point to people who need to understand that general point, the better chance they will listen.
3. Your description should have put wealth/class as part of the difficulty setting.
Nope. Money and class are both hugely important and can definitely compensate for quite a lot, which I have of course noted in the entry itself. But they belong in the stats category because wealth and class are not an inherent part of one's personal nature - and in the US particularly, part of our cultural sorting behavior - in the manner that race, gender and sexuality are (note "inherent" here does not necessarily mean "immutable," but that's a conversation I'm not going to go into great detail about right now). You can disagree, of course. But speaking as someone who has been at both the bottom and the top of the wealth and class spectrum here in the US, I think I have enough personal knowledge on the matter to say it belongs where I put it.
4.I'm a straight white male and my life isn't easy! My life sucks! Your "lowest difficulty setting" doesn't account for that!
That's actually fully accounted for in the entry. Go back and read it again.
This one's a stand-in for all the complaints about the entry that come primarily either from not reading the entry, or not reading what was actually written in the entry in preference to a version of the entry that exists solely in that one person's head, and which is not the entry I wrote. Please, gentlemen, read what is there, not what you think is there, or what you believe must be there because you know you already disagree with what I have to say, no matter what it is I am saying.
5. What about affirmative action (and/or other similar programs)? It just proves SWMs don't have it easy anymore!
Asserting that programs designed to counteract decades of systematic discrimination are proof that Straight White Males are not operating on the lowest difficulty setting in the game of life is not the winning argument you apparently believe it is. I'll let you try to figure out why that is on your own. Likewise, anecdotal examples of a straight white guy getting the short end of the stick in some manner do not suggest that, therefore, it's hard out there for all straight white men all the time.
6. Your piece is racist and sexist.
This particular comment was lobbed at me primarily from aggrieved straight white males. Leaving aside entirely that the piece was neither, let me just say that I think it's delightful that these straight white males are now engaged on issues of racism and sexism. It would be additionally delightful if they were engaged on issues of racism and sexism even when they did not feel it was being applied to them - say, for example,when it's regarding people who historically have most often had to deal with racism and sexism (i.e., not white males). Keep at it, straight white males! You're on the path now!
7. I feel this piece is an attack on straight white men.
You need to re-calibrate your definition of "attack," then, because it's depressingly (or hilariously) out of whack. Suggesting all straight white men should be defenstrated into a courtyard covered with spikes would be an attack. Noting that straight white men operate at the lowest difficulty setting in life is an observation.
Otherwise, in a general sense, when people point out the things straight white men get on credit (or don't have to deal with), the unspoken part of that is not "and that's why we plan to burn all you bastards in a big screaming pile when the revolution comes," it's "hey, just so you know." Because you should know. It's not about blame, it's about knowledge. Stop assuming it's about blame. Paranoid and hypersensitive is no way to go through life.
8. You did not lay out in exhaustive factual detail, with graphs and charts, your assertion that straight white men operate at the lowest difficulty setting in our culture.
Also generally lobbed at me by aggrieved straight white men. And indeed I did not. Also, when I write about tripping over my shoelaces and falling on my ass, I do not preface the comment with a comprehensive discussion of the theory of gravity. For two reasons: One, it's not needed because for anyone but committed gravity-deniers, the theory of gravity is obvious and taken as read, and two, that's not the focus of the entry. In the case of the "lowest difficulty setting" entry, I took what I see as the obvious advantages to being straight, white and male in our culture as read. One may of course argue with that assertion, and some did in the previous comment thread, but I have to say I've generally found those arguments to be less than compelling (see point six, above).
9. In your comment thread with the article, you censored people who disagreed with you.
I indeed malleted quite a few people in that comment thread. Most of them disagreed with me philosophically on the issue under discussion. They were also being assholes. They were malleted for the latter, not the former. Who gets to judge when someone's being an asshole here? Why, I do. Because it's my site. A quick look through the comment thread in question shows that quite a few people, who disagreed with my ideas to varying levels of strenuousness, had their comments posted unmolested. That's because they were generally polite to others in the thread, did not lead with their asses, and their comments were not generally dripping with racism/sexism/condescension/stupidity. This is all covered in the comment policy, which is linked to on every page of the site.
Now, people may be upset that in addition to deleting people's comments, I also mocked them when I deleted their comments. But, you know, when you show up on my site and decide to shiat all over the carpet, I'm not going to be nice to you. Also, this.
10. I am never going to buy anything you write ever again.
I don't care.
11. Not every straight white man thinks what you wrote is wrong.
Of course. Noting that some straight white men are having difficulty accepting the idea they operate on the lowest difficulty setting in life doesn't mean that all straight white men do, or that any particular straight white men will experience said difficulties. Alternately, there are a lot of straight white men who think my premise is wrong to a greater or lesser extent, but who can express that disagreement cogently, and even forcefully, without additionally coming across as a five-year-old having a tantrum because he's been told he has to share his toys. Straight white men, like any group, have all sorts of personalities.
12. You wrote the article and pointed out the straight white men live life on the lowest difficulty setting. Okay, fine. What do I/we do next?
Well, that's up to you, isn't it? What I'm doing is pointing out a thing. What you do with that thing is your decision.
That said, here's what I do: recognize it, and work to make it so the more difficult settings in life becomes closer to the one I get to run through life on - by making those less difficult, mind you, not making mine more so.
(Update: Some final thoughts here.)

HILARIOUS!
 
2012-07-23 07:36:44 PM  
I'm sorry, but how can we take this "self made man" testimonial seriously if he not once use the terms "bootstraps", "handouts" or "job creators", hmm? Well??
 
2012-07-23 07:40:18 PM  
Why do only straight white males complain about anti-white anti-male rantings while pretty much everyone complains about anti-women or anti-this race stuff?

Also if your parents chose to starve you instead of get government assistance so you think you are somehow inept to paying taxes- uh no. Nobody should make the choice for someone else (even their children) to have to suffer. So it is awful that you had a bad childhood. Nobody else should have to go through that. But if you think that makes you 'self-made' you are in denial.

It was a good article, pretty basic if you understand how government and communities work. Pretty much the ideas that all human civilization were built no (uh, we get more done together than alone). One big thing he forgot to mention was how he never had to hide while his home was bombed or protect all his stuff from crazy rebels or anything like that. I have heard taxes explained as insurance. The more you make, the more you have to lose, the more you are paying the government to protect it. Even for people who don't believe in helping others or social welfare that should be easy to understand.
 
2012-07-23 07:40:26 PM  

Primum: Those of you white males who have supposedly experienced these things... did they happen to you because of your skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or other in-born thing you can't change? No? Then STFU and stop whining.


As someone who was one of the few white males who went to an almost all black Detroit high school, I think you're a farking moron.
 
2012-07-23 07:41:22 PM  

spidermilk: Also if your parents chose to starve you instead of get government assistance so you think you are somehow inept to paying taxes- uh no. Nobody should make the choice for someone else (even their children) to have to suffer. So it is awful that you had a bad childhood. Nobody else should have to go through that. But if you think that makes you 'self-made' you are in denial.


This, a thousand times over.
 
2012-07-23 07:41:39 PM  
Barak Obama=Black and rich
Tiger Woods=Black and rich.
BBQBob= White and not rich.

This invalidates everything said here!
 
2012-07-23 07:41:56 PM  

spidermilk: Even for people who don't believe in helping others or social welfare that should be easy to understand.


So were here from the government were here to help eh?
 
2012-07-23 07:43:30 PM  

gerrymander: Vlad_the_Inaner: Giving 'Thanks' at Thanksgiving is EXACTLY about being aware of what you've got, privileges included, and feeling good about it. Feeling good about that wouldn't diminish anyone.

I disagree. When a person speaks for himself (or as part of a self-inclusive group, such as a family Thanksgiving per your example, or a church congregation) about being aware of privileges, it can be humbling without being diminishing.

When a person speaks to others about their need to be aware of privilege, without identifying as part of that group, it is intended as a brickbat -- always and every time, in my experience. ...


preceptaustin.org
/wants a word with you...
 
2012-07-23 07:45:40 PM  
Ayn Rand's Social Worker:
HILARIOUS!


hah! they've got it the least difficult and manage to produce the most butthurt.
 
2012-07-23 07:45:49 PM  
moviemusereviews.com
Unavailable for comment.
 
2012-07-23 07:54:01 PM  

jimk777: Rincewind53: The subby is screwing with you. Scalzi's post is not in any way a post about taxes, it's a post in defense of Obama's statement that we all got somewhere through the help of others. It's a serious post, not sarcastic in the least bit.

You and Scalzi may be missing the point on why Obama's statements were so ignorant. If people succeed because of other people, society, government or whatever, then everyone should have succeeded to the same degree. If you didn't build your own business why doesn't everyone have a successful business? Disregarding the small percentage of people who succeed because of wealthy parents or the even smaller percentage of people who fail because they are literally brain damaged, everyone has access to the these same resources and opportunities. Some people are simply better at making use of resources and finding opportunities and some people aren't interested in what is usually the hard work and hours required to initially build a successful business. The resources and opportunities are available to all and people from all social and ethnic backgrounds have succeeded. The difference is purely down to the individual which is why it was either stupid or irrelevant for Obama to claim people don't build their own business simply because they are not alone on a deserted island by themself.


I think you missed a memo or two -
Link
Link
 
2012-07-23 07:55:33 PM  
That was excellent.
 
2012-07-23 07:58:07 PM  

gerrymander: Rincewind53: Wow. Turns out I was totally right. You ARE remarkably ignorant about privilege. And your reading comprehension sucks if you read any racism or sexism against white males into Scalzi's post.

The racism and sexism is present in the selective attention. If he had done an entire series of posts wherein different audiences each had their own privilege proclaimed as "easy mode" with an attendant examination of how they get benefits they might not merit, I wouldn't be complaining. (And if he did after I stopped reading, please say so, and I'll do my homework and reconsider.)

But parenthetical note aside, I'm fairly confident he didn't -- because like you, he doesn't actually acknowledge that different people may gain different societal benefits they don't merit in different situations. (Take these informal dating studies, for example. Not the results expected from the "straight, white male privilege" model, to say the least.) The elitism Scalzi displays is a modern form of what used to be called "the white man's burden", bringing enlightenment to the savages. That he's casting other white men in the role of the savages doesn't make the racism any less appalling.

That you can't recognize it is just embarrassing.


Did you READ that second study? You know, that showed how WHITE MEN get far more responses than any other men?

You're an idiot. You can't even defend your opinion in a remotely cogent manner.
 
2012-07-23 07:58:38 PM  

Virtue: Which is completely IRRELEVANT......


To you.
 
2012-07-23 07:59:20 PM  
I assure you , he didn't.
 
2012-07-23 08:01:21 PM  
Thank you?
 
2012-07-23 08:04:12 PM  
Unless you are THE farker that invented money and society, your money, if you have some piled up, comes from other people and the society that protects you.
You owe them.
Make it right.
 
2012-07-23 08:04:16 PM  

kasmel:

The amount unaccounted for falls into the range of statistical error. 4-7%.

The study is not capable of accounting for things like discrimination leading to part-time vs. full-time jobs. In fact, it attributes 0% of the difference in part- vs. full-time job holding to discrimination, by assumption. Read the methodology. After making such assumptions, it arrives at the 4-7% figure, but these assumptions themselves are what are in question.

I don't know if data exists that can answer this question. Therefore, I don't think we can conclude that discrimination is negligible. Regardless, I do agree with you that we should be looking at known underlying social factors that influence career choices (e.g., decoupling health care from employment).

 
2012-07-23 08:04:23 PM  
Thanks asshole subby, now I have to scrub my computer.
 
2012-07-23 08:05:19 PM  
Oops, with better quoting:

kasmel: The amount unaccounted for falls into the range of statistical error. 4-7%.


The study is not capable of accounting for things like discrimination leading to part-time vs. full-time jobs. In fact, it attributes 0% of the difference in part- vs. full-time job holding to discrimination, by assumption. Read the methodology. After making such assumptions, it arrives at the 4-7% figure, but these assumptions themselves are what are in question.

I don't know if data exists that can answer this question. Therefore, I don't think we can conclude that discrimination is negligible. Regardless, I do agree with you that we should be looking at known underlying social factors that influence career choices (e.g., decoupling health care from employment).
 
2012-07-23 08:05:50 PM  

SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.


If there's a profit side to things, how would it be more efficient? Medicare has a 3% overhead for administration. For-profits spend 20% of their revenue on non-medical related items. How can you claim efficiency in the private sector when it's 17% more inefficient? The VA is even better than Medicare in providing health care. Scalzi lived through that as a child. If his parents weren't in the military, there could be a good chance that John Scalzi might not be alive as his parents might have opted for an abortion.
 
2012-07-23 08:06:23 PM  

vpb: It's a great article, but I think most of the anti tax types could write a similar article if they were honest (and literate) enough.

You can't run a business without infrastructure to transport goods and services, a legal system and police to keep people from taking your product instead of paying for it, a currency so you can have commerce without having to barter, and lots more along that line.
.


And yet the Silk Road was built over a thousand years ago, without any of the things you mentioned.

//All the hard work you put into making yourself successful throughout your life, you didn't do that.
 
2012-07-23 08:07:17 PM  
As a straight white male I will offer my stock response to Scalzi and any others who speak of white privilege, male privilege and or hetero privilege.

In the role playing game known as The Real World, "Straight White Male" is the lowest difficulty setting there is.

Yeah, and?

That usually kills the discussion.

"You have privilege!"
"Yeah, and?"
"That's wrong"
"Yeah, and?"
"Someone should do something!"
"Yeah, and?"
"And what?!!!"
"I don't know, you brought it up."
 
2012-07-23 08:09:49 PM  

MikeMc: "Someone should do something!"
"Yeah, and?"
"And what?!!!"
"I don't know, you brought it up."


I think the general response, and the one that Scalzi mentioned is something along the lines of "That's fine, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

Not implying you personally are doing that. But I'm seeing it on both sides. But mostly the other side, cause, y'know, it's not the side I'm on. :)
 
2012-07-23 08:10:26 PM  

cynispasm: Animals aren't going to riot and rob your ass if they get hungry.


You're right- animals will just attack and eat you.

And in both cases, the correct response is to defend yourself, killing if necessary. Eventually, the...animals... will learn to leave you alone (or they'll all be dead).
 
2012-07-23 08:11:41 PM  
If the bottom-line is we start to be accountable to each other as humanity should be, i.e. money consolidation is BAD for humanity, we feed each other, and we love each other first, then, YES!

;)
 
2012-07-23 08:11:59 PM  

ph0rk: And when one group systematically gets a worse hand, generation after generation? Let me guess: not your problem?


Inner city blacks have a teenage pregnancy rate that is of epidemic proportions. Fatherless households are becoming the norm. Economic hardship is increases as a result. This isn't some horror caused by roving bands of privileged whites raping young black girls. This is black men farking black woman without protection and not being responsible. Why? Because blaming "white privilege" makes is acceptable to not take responsibility for your own actions.

You are correct. It is not my problem.
 
2012-07-23 08:12:18 PM  

Diogenes The Cynic: vpb: It's a great article, but I think most of the anti tax types could write a similar article if they were honest (and literate) enough.

You can't run a business without infrastructure to transport goods and services, a legal system and police to keep people from taking your product instead of paying for it, a currency so you can have commerce without having to barter, and lots more along that line.
.

And yet the Silk Road was built over a thousand years ago, without any of the things you mentioned.

//All the hard work you put into making yourself successful throughout your life, you didn't do that.


Unless you did all that hard work on a desert island, by yourself from birth, without family, housing, education, and defence from predators, don't go getting all proud of a little work.
 
2012-07-23 08:13:15 PM  
If only there were a way for him to contribute more taxes.....
 
2012-07-23 08:14:15 PM  

Prof. Ann Marion: gerrymander: Vlad_the_Inaner: Giving 'Thanks' at Thanksgiving is EXACTLY about being aware of what you've got, privileges included, and feeling good about it. Feeling good about that wouldn't diminish anyone.

I disagree. When a person speaks for himself (or as part of a self-inclusive group, such as a family Thanksgiving per your example, or a church congregation) about being aware of privileges, it can be humbling without being diminishing.

When a person speaks to others about their need to be aware of privilege, without identifying as part of that group, it is intended as a brickbat -- always and every time, in my experience. ...

[preceptaustin.org image 400x458]
/wants a word with you...


Did you miss the the bit about "church congregation"? Jesus teaching to his followers -- note the possessive -- is pretty much the archetypical example of the "inclusive" type.

What I'm looking for is one example -- just one! -- by anyone who writes about privilege who concludes that having it is thing worth merit. Because odds are if it exists, I'll have more by that author to read, as well as commentary for and against.
 
2012-07-23 08:15:32 PM  
Taxes is where rich people take money from poor people and put it into a pool to pay for things that rich people and poor people both use and need. It's a volume business and so far, unless they find away to initiate a 200% tax rate, it's all just going down a black hole located inside a checkbook with a negative balance that would make Croesus swoon. Light hearted anecdotal stories are a good read, but the system is fundamentally broken and the money is imaginary. You have to make stuff for your money to have value and if your money has no value, your taxes are just moving more debt in one direction. That direction is down. That debt is then harvested and utilized as a lever to move more wealth upward. The money is a mass delusion.
 
2012-07-23 08:18:45 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.


thank you!
 
2012-07-23 08:26:45 PM  

SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.


That is very naive. The private sector is profit driven. It will only help the destitute if there a few billion bucks to be made in the process.

If you mean charities when you say the private sector, you are once again being naive. Although charities are mostly driven by goodwill, many of them have a religious axe to grind. And even those that don't, still rely on the goodwill and generosity of ordinary people to fund their work. The majority of people, when given a tax cut will spend it on themselves, not on charity.

Once again I find it necessary to point out that I have never been so shocked as when I visited the US a few years ago to see how many poor people are now begging on street corners. It certainly was not this bad in the 1970s. What has changed since then? You now pay much lower taxes, so there is less money to help those in need.

No wonder you have such sky high levels of crime in the US. When you paid adequate taxes to fund a proper society you were the envy of the world. Now you are viewed with scorn and contempt - 'only in America' and 'typical yank stupidity' being just two of the things I have heard people around me say in the last few days.

No one likes or respects you any more. Yes, I know, no one likes or respects me either. But I never was popular, admired or successful. But you were once seen as the shining light on the hill.
 
2012-07-23 08:26:52 PM  

MyRandomName: I love this strawman liberals are setting up to defend Obama. Nobody is arguing success happens in a vacuum. The argument is what is responsible for a successful business. A lot of hard work goes into creating a business, the government does not get to say they are mostly responsible for that as Obama implies. Taking a long reading of Obama's inference, everyone would be successful merely because roads exist. That is not the case whatsoever. Individuals utilize public shares to the best of their capacity. The web we know today would not exist without capitalists improving on the darpanet infrastructure.

If Obama wants credit for all successful business, he has to take credit for business that fails as well. For every road that allowed the transport of good there is a regulation that made the market to costly for some to enter; whether it is eminent domain, costly regulations, cost of licensing (hair dressers), etc. Government can help or hinder a business. But it takes an individual to CREATE the business, not government. That is what Obama said wrong, individuals do create business.


Yeah, remember how Henry Ford personally built every single car that came off his assembly line? That was a hell of a man!
 
2012-07-23 08:29:32 PM  

kg2095: SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.

That is very naive. The private sector is profit driven. It will only help the destitute if there a few billion bucks to be made in the process.

If you mean charities when you say the private sector, you are once again being naive. Although charities are mostly driven by goodwill, many of them have a religious axe to grind. And even those that don't, still rely on the goodwill and generosity of ordinary people to fund their work. The majority of people, when given a tax cut will spend it on themselves, not on charity.

Once again I find it necessary to point out that I have never been so shocked as when I visited the US a few years ago to see how many poor people are now begging on street corners. It certainly was not this bad in the 1970s. What has changed since then? You now pay much lower taxes, so there is less money to help those in need.

No wonder you have such sky high levels of crime in the US. When you paid adequate taxes to fund a proper society you were the envy of the world. Now you are viewed with scorn and contempt - 'only in America' and 'typical yank stupidity' being just two of the things I have heard people around me say in the last few days.

No one likes or respects you any more. Yes, I know, no one likes or respects me either. But I never was popular, admired or successful. But you were once seen as the shining light on the hill.


The good old days?
 
2012-07-23 08:29:43 PM  

namatad: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.

thank you!


Agreed, but could we feed, clothe, shelter, and secure from wanton violence, world, first, please?

Oh wait.

We can do this ALL at the same time...

;)
 
2012-07-23 08:30:32 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.


And?

/Stock response in action
//Also, the term "cis-gendered" is lost on 99.9% of Farkers the human population.
 
2012-07-23 08:30:34 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: skinnycatullus: WTF is going on in this thread?

fta: I hope the taxes I pay will help some military wife give birth

He doesn't seem to know the basics of biology. But taxes can do it all!


You have horrible reading comprehension.
 
2012-07-23 08:32:06 PM  

vpb: You can't run a business without infrastructure to transport goods and services, a legal system and police to keep people from taking your product instead of paying for it, a currency so you can have commerce without having to barter, and lots more along that line.


I think I read somewhere that the national infrastructure in the US is worth around $200k per person. And then consider the vast amount of scientific and technical knowledge much of it funded through direct and indirect subsidies.
 
2012-07-23 08:34:23 PM  
John Scalzi just invalidated all of your arguments about your taxes being too high

Like hell he has...
 
2012-07-23 08:34:51 PM  
He's a hero because the slobbered on the government teet for the first thirty years of his life while my parents had to work second jobs and pay for everything out of their own pocket?

My parents, who had no one to help them, who had to get by on their wits and hard work?

/ self employed
// did it on my own
 
2012-07-23 08:35:16 PM  

namatad: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.

thank you!


Lol yes, white males feel no pain.
 
2012-07-23 08:35:40 PM  

KIA: The problem with high taxes arises when they createmay a barrier of entry for the middle class and a ceiling on middle-class wage earners.


you do realize that taxes in the US are progressive? that the amount that you pay increases on the portion over a certain amount? not on the total income? when you enter the next bracket you only pay a few dollars more??

or were you just being a troll?
 
2012-07-23 08:39:28 PM  

Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]


It's "Largest Number" of food stamps, not the largest "Amount." If you want to talk about the "Amount" of money, that's fine, but don't say "Amount" of food stamps. Handy guide: Link. If you're going to attempt to call somebody stupid, at least get your grammar correct. Second, if you're going to call someone stupid, try not to use so obvious of a false equivalence
 
2012-07-23 08:42:04 PM  

snocone: Diogenes The Cynic: vpb: It's a great article, but I think most of the anti tax types could write a similar article if they were honest (and literate) enough.

You can't run a business without infrastructure to transport goods and services, a legal system and police to keep people from taking your product instead of paying for it, a currency so you can have commerce without having to barter, and lots more along that line.
.

And yet the Silk Road was built over a thousand years ago, without any of the things you mentioned.

//All the hard work you put into making yourself successful throughout your life, you didn't do that.

Unless you did all that hard work on a desert island, by yourself from birth, without family, housing, education, and defence from predators, don't go getting all proud of a little work.


Came into this country as a refugee bro. We had our clothes, and a few pieces of luggage.
And yet, this generation, which in my family is 8 sets of parents, and about 30 children has produced:

4 doctors
2 engineers
3 dentists
1 lawyer
5 small business owners

The rest are either out of the work force intentionally (raising children, college) or salaried/wage earners.

But I guess we got to where we are from being white. That helped out a lot. Amirite?

And before you say we would have been more limited in our home country (which was settling down after a revolution) remember that the kind of mentality that produces infrastructure isn't the kind that sits around whining about how its not fair that everyone else is better off than they.
 
2012-07-23 08:42:37 PM  

RehcamretsneF: This subby obviously didnt read the article.

Apart from being on welfare, taxes did nothing for this man. He was handpicked for his talents and abilities all through life, and spent this article thanking people for it. PEOPLE. not TAXES. TIME and value placed upon people without a pricetag, is what got him where he is. IDK what the subby was implying... thinking taxes all of a sudden makes it a "level playing ground" for all the other worthless kids? sorry, quite the opposite. maybe one person in america will be wholly helped by the tax concessions of this man. Everything else is a waste, and makes it worse for everyone else. System is broken. He got lucky.


HI
Subby here.
UM
I read the article and I understood the article.

1) taxes paid for his birth and healthcare on and off
2) taxes paid for hist first 8 years of education
3) taxes paid for food stamps and school lunches
4) private high school - fine - technically no taxes there, except that education is tax deductible ...
5) taxes paid for his pell grants

so yah, taxes were a giant part of helping him in his life.
 
2012-07-23 08:43:48 PM  

Barbecue Bob: Barak Obama=Black and rich
Tiger Woods=Black and rich.
BBQBob= White and not rich.

This invalidates everything said here!


ITS ALL SO CLEAR NOW!
 
2012-07-23 08:43:55 PM  

bunner: Taxes is where rich people take money from poor people and put it into a pool to pay for things that rich people and poor people both use and need. It's a volume business and so far, unless they find away to initiate a 200% tax rate, it's all just going down a black hole located inside a checkbook with a negative balance that would make Croesus swoon. Light hearted anecdotal stories are a good read, but the system is fundamentally broken and the money is imaginary. You have to make stuff for your money to have value and if your money has no value, your taxes are just moving more debt in one direction. That direction is down. That debt is then harvested and utilized as a lever to move more wealth upward. The money is a mass delusion.


I think the middle class carries most of the tax burden...in which case you do a disservice by going after small business owners. When I was "poor" or making sub $30k, the govt hardly asked for any $ from me... Now my partner and I pay a ridiculous amount in taxes. I guess we're some of those dumb "non-poor" schmucks who haven't learned the loopholes yet...unless there really are no tax loopholes for upper middle class people.

Interestingly, if the 175 million ppl who filed tax returns all contributed a minimum of $300, measly amount that it is (or even some hundred bucks as an annual contribution), it seems the fed's budget would be in better shape.
 
2012-07-23 08:45:31 PM  
Wow. Was that a filibuster?

Incredibly boring.
 
2012-07-23 08:49:19 PM  

OgreMagi: ph0rk: And when one group systematically gets a worse hand, generation after generation? Let me guess: not your problem?

Inner city blacks have a teenage pregnancy rate that is of epidemic proportions. Fatherless households are becoming the norm. Economic hardship is increases as a result. This isn't some horror caused by roving bands of privileged whites raping young black girls. This is black men farking black woman without protection and not being responsible. Why? Because blaming "white privilege" makes is acceptable to not take responsibility for your own actions.
You are correct. It is not my problem./i&g


"Ain't you gonna use a rubber baby?"

"HELL NO! Cause White Privilege!"
 
2012-07-23 08:49:59 PM  

gerrymander: Prof. Ann Marion: gerrymander: Vlad_the_Inaner: Giving 'Thanks' at Thanksgiving is EXACTLY about being aware of what you've got, privileges included, and feeling good about it. Feeling good about that wouldn't diminish anyone.

I disagree. When a person speaks for himself (or as part of a self-inclusive group, such as a family Thanksgiving per your example, or a church congregation) about being aware of privileges, it can be humbling without being diminishing.

When a person speaks to others about their need to be aware of privilege, without identifying as part of that group, it is intended as a brickbat -- always and every time, in my experience. ...

[preceptaustin.org image 400x458]
/wants a word with you...

Did you miss the the bit about "church congregation"? Jesus teaching to his followers -- note the possessive -- is pretty much the archetypical example of the "inclusive" type.

What I'm looking for is one example -- just one! -- by anyone who writes about privilege who concludes that having it is thing worth merit. Because odds are if it exists, I'll have more by that author to read, as well as commentary for and against.


Set down the goal post for a second, m'dear, and let me tell you a short story. That Christ guy didn't actually have a church at the time, he was a Jew bucking the establishment of the Synagogues and Romans - he was talking to whomever would listen.

...ok, continue, remember to lift with your legs not your back...
 
2012-07-23 08:51:49 PM  

Ambitwistor: /remaining "taxation is theft" nonsense snipped


You know how I know you have zero reading comprehension? I never said taxation is theft. I said that taxing the productive for charity is theft. I also pointed out, indirectly, that impoverishing the middle class through confiscatory taxation has not demonstrably improved the rate of poverty in this country. That's not nonsense, that's a fact.

Taxing for the common welfare, such as defense, roads and bridges, etc. is a good and proper function of government. Charity for some at the expense of others has accomplished nothing but a federal debt equal to our GDP.
 
2012-07-23 08:52:35 PM  

YoungLochinvar: Did you READ that second study? You know, that showed how WHITE MEN get far more responses than any other men?


Both studies show the same thing, when reduced along gender lines from the standpoint of privilege: women have it in extraordinary amounts, based upon the ratio of interest to responses. Which means Scalzi's "easy mode" metaphor doesn't apply for mate selection. May I trust that you see exactly how huge a gaping hole that puts into the metaphor?
 
2012-07-23 08:53:37 PM  

elysive: I guess we're some of those dumb "non-poor" schmucks


Considering our high standard of living and the fact that it's all leveraged on debt, malarkey, market manipulation and corporate hooery, I'd say that's most of us.
 
2012-07-23 08:55:32 PM  

Mr. Right: Charity for some at the expense of others has accomplished nothing but a federal debt equal to our GDP.


I will bet you fourteen trillion dollars that that is not the sole source of our debt. : )
 
2012-07-23 08:57:35 PM  

Prof. Ann Marion: That Christ guy didn't actually have a church at the time, he was a Jew bucking the establishment of the Synagogues and Romans - he was talking to whomever would listen.


...and not at people who weren't -- which is my point.
 
2012-07-23 08:59:54 PM  

Monongahela Misfit: MyRandomName: I love this strawman liberals are setting up to defend Obama. Nobody is arguing success happens in a vacuum. The argument is what is responsible for a successful business. A lot of hard work goes into creating a business, the government does not get to say they are mostly responsible for that as Obama implies. Taking a long reading of Obama's inference, everyone would be successful merely because roads exist. That is not the case whatsoever. Individuals utilize public shares to the best of their capacity. The web we know today would not exist without capitalists improving on the darpanet infrastructure.

If Obama wants credit for all successful business, he has to take credit for business that fails as well. For every road that allowed the transport of good there is a regulation that made the market to costly for some to enter; whether it is eminent domain, costly regulations, cost of licensing (hair dressers), etc. Government can help or hinder a business. But it takes an individual to CREATE the business, not government. That is what Obama said wrong, individuals do create business.

This!
Scalzi may have missed the point in his well reasoned article. You did not. Bravo, and thanks.



Account created: 2012-06-21 06:30:45
 
2012-07-23 09:00:41 PM  

gerrymander: Ow, something popped!.


Here...

hernia-supports.webs.com
 
2012-07-23 09:02:43 PM  

jcooli09: roxtar10870: Taxes = theft... What good Might be done with the stolen money doesn't make it moral.
This guy is an idiot.
Taxes aren't theft, and if think they are you are clearly stupid.


All you have to do is ask yourself what the consequences of not paying are in order to see that the money is stolen from each and every one of us. I guess you could split hairs and point out the differences between theft and extorsion but the fact that both involve coersion should suffice.
 
2012-07-23 09:04:08 PM  

bunner: elysive: I guess we're some of those dumb "non-poor" schmucks

Considering our high standard of living and the fact that it's all leveraged on debt, malarkey, market manipulation and corporate hooery, I'd say that's most of us.


I thought you said "Taxes is where rich people take money from poor people...It's a volume business". Where are all those poor people who are carrying the Federal budget?
 
2012-07-23 09:09:07 PM  

elysive: bunner: elysive: I guess we're some of those dumb "non-poor" schmucks

Considering our high standard of living and the fact that it's all leveraged on debt, malarkey, market manipulation and corporate hooery, I'd say that's most of us.

I thought you said "Taxes is where rich people take money from poor people...It's a volume business". Where are all those poor people who are carrying the Federal budget?


Unless you're clocking about 100mm a year or so with tons of liquidity, I'd say both of us qualify. Poor ain't what it used to be and rich is a very small club. If you roll up your sleeves for a living and get dirty fingernails, you might have the mortgage or the rent and a full fridge, but a casual look at inflation and wealth migration over the last 40 years should remove any doubt that you're farting through silk. Poor doesn't mean "beating your washing on a rock and eating stone soup", anymore.
 
2012-07-23 09:09:41 PM  

elysive: bunner: elysive: I guess we're some of those dumb "non-poor" schmucks

Considering our high standard of living and the fact that it's all leveraged on debt, malarkey, market manipulation and corporate hooery, I'd say that's most of us.

I thought you said "Taxes is where rich people take money from poor people...It's a volume business". Where are all those poor people who are carrying the Federal budget?


*raises hand*
 
2012-07-23 09:10:01 PM  
I joined the military to pay for college. Did I pay for that or did the government? Seems mutually beneficial as like everything else between business and infrastructure.
 
2012-07-23 09:11:03 PM  
remove any doubt that you're not, rather.
 
2012-07-23 09:11:10 PM  

bunner: elysive: bunner: elysive: I guess we're some of those dumb "non-poor" schmucks

Considering our high standard of living and the fact that it's all leveraged on debt, malarkey, market manipulation and corporate hooery, I'd say that's most of us.

I thought you said "Taxes is where rich people take money from poor people...It's a volume business". Where are all those poor people who are carrying the Federal budget?

Unless you're clocking about 100mm a year or so with tons of liquidity, I'd say both of us qualify. Poor ain't what it used to be and rich is a very small club. If you roll up your sleeves for a living and get dirty fingernails, you might have the mortgage or the rent and a full fridge, but a casual look at inflation and wealth migration over the last 40 years should remove any doubt that you're farting through silk. Poor doesn't mean "beating your washing on a rock and eating stone soup", anymore.


Really?

I'm still waiting for you to buy one of my paintings, man. Price just went up. ;)
 
2012-07-23 09:12:22 PM  

serial_crusher: Our excessive military budget is one of the few things the teabaggers are OK paying taxes for.


That's because they don't mind so much paying someone to go do some work. It's the paying someone to do nothing, or to grow nothing, that puts tea panties in a bind.
 
2012-07-23 09:13:59 PM  

Indubitably: I'm still waiting for you to buy one of my paintings, man. Price just went up. ;)


All my money is presently invested heavily into real estate, oil and agriculture. Rent, gas and food. Get back to me. : )
 
2012-07-23 09:14:36 PM  

imgod2u: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Thank you for proving my point. Congress does have the right to lay taxes and it is the duty of every productive citizen to pay those taxes. But I don't think you know what general Welfare means. It means that the federal expenditure must benefit all equally. Welfare never referred to the public dole or charity until FDR. So, a road project for which taxes are laid benefits everyone equally. A common defense benefits everyone equally. A welfare program that is restricted to mothers not married to the father of their children benefits only a small segment of society at the expense of everyone who does take responsibility for their children. A farm program that pays certain farmers to not raise corn benefits a very small segment of society at the expense of everyone who wasn't going to raise corn in the first place. Your quote also calls for taxes to be laid equally across all the states. When some states get exemptions from the Affordable Care Act but others do not, is that equal? Especially given that SCOTUS has called ACA a tax?

There is nothing wrong with taxes, provided they really are used for the GENERAL welfare. Public charity was never the intent of the framers. Private charity was not only the intent, but is viewed as a mandate. The parable from Matthew (in the Bible) about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc., is a mandate for charity but the sense of the mandate is always singular, not plural. You (plural) are not mandated to be charitable, YOU (singular) are. And taking from some only to give to a few others is decidedly not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
 
2012-07-23 09:17:41 PM  

bunner: elysive: bunner: elysive: I guess we're some of those dumb "non-poor" schmucks

Considering our high standard of living and the fact that it's all leveraged on debt, malarkey, market manipulation and corporate hooery, I'd say that's most of us.

I thought you said "Taxes is where rich people take money from poor people...It's a volume business". Where are all those poor people who are carrying the Federal budget?

Unless you're clocking about 100mm a year or so with tons of liquidity, I'd say both of us qualify. Poor ain't what it used to be and rich is a very small club. If you roll up your sleeves for a living and get dirty fingernails, you might have the mortgage or the rent and a full fridge, but a casual look at inflation and wealth migration over the last 40 years should remove any doubt that you're farting through silk. Poor doesn't mean "beating your washing on a rock and eating stone soup", anymore.


I don't feel like arguing with you terminology of middle class versus lower class versus poor, but given that there is a huge wealth disparity between the "rich" or 1% and the "rest of us", it's still totally massively okay to raise taxes on people who make $250k though, right??? That wasn't, like, a dickish thing for the current administration to do because of course those 250k people are slightly less poor and deserve to pay a higher tax rate than everyone else, right? It sure seems safer than forcing the actual rich people to pay anything at all.

/would support a flat tax rate and obliteration of complex tax law that allows for people to slip in and out of loopholes
//and upon further consideration i do think there is a difference between the kind of poor that is living on credit and from paycheck to paycheck versus being comfortable (or not even needing a dual income household), but you're correct that most Americans aren't filthy rich and don't fall into that "rich" 1%
 
2012-07-23 09:21:32 PM  

Mr. Right: Ambitwistor: /remaining "taxation is theft" nonsense snipped

You know how I know you have zero reading comprehension? I never said taxation is theft. I said that taxing the productive for charity is theft.


Right. "Taxation is theft" nonsense.
 
2012-07-23 09:23:21 PM  

bunner: Mr. Right: Charity for some at the expense of others has accomplished nothing but a federal debt equal to our GDP.

I will bet you fourteen trillion dollars that that is not the sole source of our debt. : )


No, but it is the leading contributor. We have spent more on entitlements than any other expenditure. And the federal debt is much closer to $16 trillion. Bear in mind that that does not include state debt in the form of bonds and other instruments (since all 50 states must balance their budgets, they don't have debt the way the feds do) or municipal debt for every city, county, township, and school district that carries bonds of any sort. It also does not account for the unfunded liabilities that will accrue for all of those entitlements. I have heard estimates north of $50 trillion just for SS and Medicare. Of course, if everyone over the age of 62 were to drop dead tomorrow, we could save a lot of money and solve a lot of problems. That's not the way to bet, however, nor is it to be desired.
 
2012-07-23 09:26:52 PM  

Diogenes The Cynic: vpb: It's a great article, but I think most of the anti tax types could write a similar article if they were honest (and literate) enough.

You can't run a business without infrastructure to transport goods and services, a legal system and police to keep people from taking your product instead of paying for it, a currency so you can have commerce without having to barter, and lots more along that line.
.

And yet the Silk Road was built over a thousand years ago, without any of the things you mentioned.


You know how I know you aren't exactly a student of history?
 
2012-07-23 09:29:38 PM  
Great. Scalzi can pay his taxes and mine too since he seems OK with taxes. Something tells me that if I sent him my tax bill, he would just toss it instead of helping me out.
 
2012-07-23 09:29:57 PM  

Ambitwistor: Right. "Taxation is theft" nonsense.


None are so blind as those who refuse to see. None so intractable as the adamantly ignorant.

You are invited to participate in aeronautical intercourse with a mobile, perforated, oblate, deep-fried pastry spheroid.
 
2012-07-23 09:31:45 PM  

Mr. Right: Ambitwistor: Right. "Taxation is theft" nonsense.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.


I understand your views about taxes and "charity". I simply think they're nonsense. Capiche?
 
2012-07-23 09:32:00 PM  

Slives: I spent most of it waiting for a punchline.
If you take it seriously, you can see how many steps it took for him to become successful, and how many other people where involved or at least supportive of his rise. If you think he was being sarcastic, then it seems he overdid it and proved he is not as successful as he is claiming to be.

Still not sure which way he was really going.


Ah FARK where the poor are always underprivileged and alone, yet the successful had all the help we ever need.

Good to know some things will never let you down.
 
2012-07-23 09:32:31 PM  

pxlboy: SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.

Not everything needs to be done for a profit motive.


Hippies and James T Kirk don't need money. The rest do.
 
2012-07-23 09:33:48 PM  

Tumunga: THAT is what "guilt ridden rich libtard white privelage" means.

I hate stupid libtard phuqs. Not you regular libtards, but the ones that think I should feel guilty for being who I am. Walk in my "white privilaged" shoes for a bit, then think about the stupid list you came up with.



None of your ignorant and racist rant had anything to do with you not having barriers to an education and job because you are white.

Your idea of oppression is being run out of a park because you wanted to play basketball then you might be an idiot
 
2012-07-23 09:33:59 PM  

Ambitwistor: I understand your views about taxes and "charity". I simply think they're nonsense. Capiche?


And that's how I know you are adamantly ignorant of the founding principles of the United States and the Constitution. Capiche?
 
2012-07-23 09:35:22 PM  

elysive: it's still totally massively okay to raise taxes on people who make $250k though, right?


What on earth gave you that idea?

elysive: It sure seems safer than forcing the actual rich people to pay anything at all.


You've just figured out the precise point at which the game is rigged. : ) Politics is the business of saying who gets to keep what and why without getting strung up.
 
2012-07-23 09:40:28 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.


Except when you get laid off (without food or shelter & possibly fearing for your life) because your gainful employment has shut down and been outsourced to some Exotic Foreign Land; And since you're not wealthy or connected, you and your fellow layoffs are roundly ignored (not recognized) by the legislature that might have prevented that out-source; Rights? Well, you're no longer a home owner, and you don't really have a place of residence so before we can talk about anything other than "the cops can't just shoot you" rights, why don't you go be homeless and smelly somewhere else. Oh, you're depressed now, without medical treatment, unable to get any kind of help because you're the least interesting demographic, (ie. male, white, no kids), and there's no special interest charity looking out for you, you will know most, if not all of those things in a big hurry. And forget about any kind of mental illness you should suffer once you lose health insurance if you're single, unemployed, white guy.

Or was this a troll and now I have a hook in my mouth.
 
2012-07-23 09:42:03 PM  

namatad: RehcamretsneF: This subby obviously didnt read the article.

Apart from being on welfare, taxes did nothing for this man. He was handpicked for his talents and abilities all through life, and spent this article thanking people for it. PEOPLE. not TAXES. TIME and value placed upon people without a pricetag, is what got him where he is. IDK what the subby was implying... thinking taxes all of a sudden makes it a "level playing ground" for all the other worthless kids? sorry, quite the opposite. maybe one person in america will be wholly helped by the tax concessions of this man. Everything else is a waste, and makes it worse for everyone else. System is broken. He got lucky.

HI
Subby here.
UM
I read the article and I understood the article.

1) taxes paid for his birth and healthcare on and off
2) taxes paid for hist first 8 years of education
3) taxes paid for food stamps and school lunches
4) private high school - fine - technically no taxes there, except that education is tax deductible ...
5) taxes paid for his pell grants

so yah, taxes were a giant part of helping him in his life.


So, what's the moral of the story? I'm supposed to close my eyes and write Obama a blank check so he can do whatever he wants with my tax money and he can set tax rates to whatever levels he deems necessary just because some guy benefited from some programs decades ago? Even if I or my business are benefiting from government programs, as a taxpayer I should still get a vote/a say in how the money is spent and who is spending the money.

I like social services and have benefited from a few myself. Thanks to grants and federal loans, not a generous grandpa, I went to UofC too. I don't see why the logical conclusion is that all current taxes and all current implementations of social programs are great and why everyone should kiss the government's Obama's ass. I worked for a state government using federal funds and it was a mess. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask governments to tighten their belts or rid of waste before raising taxes.

/not sure why else O could have made his poorly worded statement except to try to guilt people or, more specifically, business owners into tolerating higher taxes...but I applaud everyone for taking this topic into wide tangents
 
2012-07-23 09:42:11 PM  

Mr. Right: And that's how I know you are adamantly ignorant of the founding principles of the United States and the Constitution. Capiche?


1) Your logic is broken. I could, for example, simultaneously be aware of the founding principles of the U.S. and the Constitution, and think they're nonsense.

2) If you want to insist your views on "the founding principles of the U.S. and the Constitution" are objective fact, I suggest you take that up with SCOTUS, who don't agree with your interpretation of the Constitution.

3) The whole reason I snipped your nonsense in the first place is because I'm not interested in debating it with you, so goodbye.
 
2012-07-23 09:42:31 PM  
Yay for free shiat!
 
2012-07-23 09:42:52 PM  

OgreMagi: nner city blacks have a teenage pregnancy rate that is of epidemic proportions. Fatherless households are becoming the norm. Economic hardship is increases as a result. This isn't some horror caused by roving bands of privileged whites raping young black girls. This is black men farking black woman without protection and not being responsible. Why? Because blaming "white privilege" makes is acceptable to not take responsibility for your own actions.

You are correct. It is not my problem.



Doesn't get any more racist than this

Teenage pregnancy rates are the same among all racial groups when accounting for income levels

Black males leave their families BECAUSE of economic hardship. Because of drug laws that locked them up for longer than whites. Because of a loss of manufacturing jobs. Because of a drop in education funding for inner cities

So of course it's your problem, you benefit from their hardships.
 
2012-07-23 09:44:42 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.

Except when you get laid off (without food or shelter & possibly fearing for your life) because your gainful employment has shut down and been outsourced to some Exotic Foreign Land; And since you're not wealthy or connected, you and your fellow layoffs are roundly ignored (not recognized) by the legislature that might have prevented that out-source; Rights? Well, you're no longer a home owner, and you don't really have a place of residence so before we can talk about anything other than "the cops can't just shoot you" rights, why don't you go be homeless and smelly somewhere else. Oh, you're depressed now, without medical treatment, unable to get any kind of help because you're the least interesting demographic, (ie. male, white, no kids), and there's no special interest charity looking out for you, you will know most, if not all of those things in a big hurry. And forget about any kind of mental illness you should suffer once you lose health insurance if you're single, unemployed, white guy.

Or was this a troll and now I have a hook in my mouth.


No. Your main problem is you're a whiner
 
2012-07-23 09:45:41 PM  
When he invalidates my argument about spending being too high lket me know. In the mean time, am I going to vote for the guy that just raised my taxes and has accumulated a bigger deficit in 3.5 yrs than Bush did in 8? No.
 
2012-07-23 09:45:57 PM  

Dwindle: He's a hero because the slobbered on the government teet for the first thirty years of his life while my parents had to work second jobs and pay for everything out of their own pocket?

My parents, who had no one to help them, who had to get by on their wits and hard work?

/ self employed
// did it on my own



Wow, your parents paid for private schools, private police and fire departments, private roads etc etc etc?

Ooops, your success is thanks to public infrastructure!

I bet you or your dad was in the military though like most white libertarians who go on and on how awesome they are and how they did it all themselves
 
2012-07-23 09:46:03 PM  

bunner: elysive: it's still totally massively okay to raise taxes on people who make $250k though, right?

What on earth gave you that idea?


I'm just clarifying, because I've been told for a week that Obama has lowered taxes for all the normal people so long as we make under 250k. Apparently 250k is the current administration's definition of a "rich" person, as opposed to the 100mm you stated in an earlier post.
 
2012-07-23 09:47:12 PM  
My parents had sex, my hair is a bird, your argument is invalid.
 
2012-07-23 09:48:41 PM  

Diogenes The Cynic: But I guess we got to where we are from being white. That helped out a lot. Amirite?



I bet nobody discriminated against you when you were applying for jobs. I bet nobody denied you the right to move into a house because of your race. I bet the police didn't give you a hard time because of your race. I bet the public school you all went to was properly funded and gave you a quality education, try having that in inner cities with minorities.
 
2012-07-23 09:48:46 PM  

MisterLoki: gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

You're an idiot.


No, you're an idiot.

/there
 
2012-07-23 09:50:31 PM  

Mr. Right: Charity for some at the expense of others has accomplished nothing but a federal debt equal to our GDP.



Defense spending over 1 trillion a year has nothing on food stamp spending amiright?
 
2012-07-23 09:51:33 PM  

thnksqrd: OgreMagi: ph0rk: And when one group systematically gets a worse hand, generation after generation? Let me guess: not your problem?

Inner city blacks have a teenage pregnancy rate that is of epidemic proportions. Fatherless households are becoming the norm. Economic hardship is increases as a result. This isn't some horror caused by roving bands of privileged whites raping young black girls. This is black men farking black woman without protection and not being responsible. Why? Because blaming "white privilege" makes is acceptable to not take responsibility for your own actions.
You are correct. It is not my problem./i&g

"Ain't you gonna use a rubber baby?"

"HELL NO! Cause White Privilege!"



Probably a lot of that is thanks to the great abstinence only education most inner city schools teach
 
2012-07-23 09:52:11 PM  

Primum: I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

Those of you white males who have supposedly experienced these things... did they happen to you because of your skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or other in-born thing you can't change? No? Then STFU and stop whining.

If you're saying these things because you're short or fat, or have Assburgers, or crippling shyness, or crippling body-odor, then STFU also because those things can be mitigated.

Short or fat people can lift weights. Assburgs or the shy can get therapy. Stank ass people can take a bath and use Axe.


You won't see this but whatever.

I am white. I'm an atheist. I grew up in the bible belt in largely black neighborhoods. I was oppressed for my religious views, my person and property the focus of violence (stones thrown through windows, humilation in school). Also, being a small white kid, I was constantly targeted by the older black kids, and ended up being beaten once weekly. The largely black faculty looked the other way (was repeatedly told by myself and my family the situation, nothing ever happened.)

We were poor. While I was never homeless, I went to bed many nights hungry. A box of macaroni had to last us a few days. Mother was too proud to go on food stamps.

There were many times, walking home from school, those same black kids would chase me down with baseball bats. I have no doubt they would have used them if they could. Imagine how I feared for my life, as I desperately ran through backyards, open lots, and side streets, fearful I could die. Cops didn't do anything about it, since they couldn't prove any sort Of crime was comitted.

So.....fark you? I'm as liberal as they come, maybe even more so. But you and everyone that believes that is full of it.
 
2012-07-23 09:52:26 PM  

cefm: The source article was more of an ode of thanks to all the people he owes and how he views his obligations to society and helping others through that lens. So subby is making a bit (not much, but a bit) of a leap to summarizing it as a pro-taxes article when it is so much more.

But that said - AGREED. The people who think they got where they are all by themselves are full of BS, nobody does.

And understanding that your own success is extremely dependent on the existence and assistance (direct or indirect) of others is a necessary ingredient to not being a cheap bastard about taxes or being a miserable human being.

(lived in many countries with higher taxes, had no problem paying)


As soon as people realize that there are people who create and people who pitch in the better... Or I guess we should all just pitch in, make the same net wage after taxes, and shut the fark up.
 
2012-07-23 09:53:26 PM  

roxtar10870: All you have to do is ask yourself what the consequences of not paying are in order to see that the money is stolen from each and every one of us. I guess you could split hairs and point out the differences between theft and extorsion but the fact that both involve coersion should suffice.



Try this instead

Go to a restaurant and order their nicest meal

Enjoy it and when the bill comes, walk up and leave

Will they come after you demanding you pay? You should just reply that it's your right as a citizen to use any services you want and not have to pay for it, because paying a bill is THEFT
 
2012-07-23 09:54:57 PM  

tjfly: When he invalidates my argument about spending being too high lket me know. In the mean time, am I going to vote for the guy that just raised my taxes and has accumulated a bigger deficit in 3.5 yrs than Bush did in 8? No.



Obama has lowered your taxes

Bush is responsible for the deficit
 
2012-07-23 09:55:17 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: pxlboy: SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.

Not everything needs to be done for a profit motive.

Hippies and James T Kirk don't need money. The rest do.


Seriously?

I call bullshut.

As in shut-yer-farking-mouth, asshole, you lie with the charity assholishnessness, seriously.

Grow-the-fark-a-brain!

Please!

Thank you.
 
2012-07-23 09:55:32 PM  
John Scalzi says:
July 23, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Aaaand a link to the piece just went live on Fark. Wheee!
(I've been a TotalFark member for years, BTW)


:o
 
2012-07-23 09:56:29 PM  

intelligent comment below: Mr. Right: Charity for some at the expense of others has accomplished nothing but a federal debt equal to our GDP.


Defense spending over 1 trillion a year has nothing on food stamp spending amiright?


For that trillion a year, we have the best defense and military in the world. The multiples of trillions we have spent on poverty programs has not notably reduced poverty. As I have pointed out, the poverty rate dips most significantly when the private sector economy is robust, not when there are multiple layers of government programs in place. Nothing pulls people out of poverty faster than a job. Nothing provides more jobs than the private sector, when it can profitably employ people.
 
2012-07-23 09:58:01 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.


I don't think its as privileged as you think it is
 
2012-07-23 09:58:21 PM  
rosariomariocapalbo.files.wordpress.com

Some of us are more equal than others.
 
2012-07-23 10:02:01 PM  
Somebody actually read all of that?

I think I made it a few paragraphs in before I began to long for a slideshow.
 
2012-07-23 10:04:01 PM  
So many errors, so little time...
 
2012-07-23 10:06:22 PM  

CreamyG31337: John Scalzi says:
July 23, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Aaaand a link to the piece just went live on Fark. Wheee!
(I've been a TotalFark member for years, BTW)


:o


SkinnyHead!!!!!
 
2012-07-23 10:08:18 PM  

intelligent comment below: tjfly: When he invalidates my argument about spending being too high lket me know. In the mean time, am I going to vote for the guy that just raised my taxes and has accumulated a bigger deficit in 3.5 yrs than Bush did in 8? No.


Obama has lowered your taxes

Bush is responsible for the deficit


B-b-b-but Bush. Because Bush's final words to the freshmen president as he walked out the door were, "Son. You've got to promise me one thing. Carry on my legacy, drive the economy deep into the ground as far as you can. But don't just do this for me... do this for America!"
 
2012-07-23 10:08:22 PM  

Mr. Right: I have heard estimates north of $50 trillion just for SS and Medicare. Of course, if everyone over the age of 62 were to drop dead tomorrow, we could save a lot of money and solve a lot of problems


And of course, if you herded half the population of earth into a ditch and shot them, the other half would be eating high off the hog. Cold math never works because cold math isn't the point. It's a measuring stick. Not the actual work. As far as something as relatively ( in a historical reference ) simple as health care is racking up Never Never Land style numbers means that health care isn't about health care anymore. It's about money. And as soon as something is primarily about money, you can flip the skirt up on what it is said to be about and kiss it's pink, rosy ass goodbye. We're doing it wrong. And we have been for a long time.
 
2012-07-23 10:11:12 PM  

Mr. Right: For that trillion a year, we have the best defense and military in the world. The multiples of trillions we have spent on poverty programs has not notably reduced poverty. As I have pointed out, the poverty rate dips most significantly when the private sector economy is robust, not when there are multiple layers of government programs in place. Nothing pulls people out of poverty faster than a job. Nothing provides more jobs than the private sector, when it can profitably employ people.



What exactly do you see by having the "best defense and military in the world?"

Have many countries attacked America in the past 50 years? Does Canada and Mexico attack on a daily basis?

Food stamps and other programs have better returns on investment than defense spending will ever have.

As you pointed out? You can point anything out, that doesn't mean it's right.

Having a job gets you out of poverty, well no shiat? Guess what? America has had a lack of jobs for over a decade.

The private sector ironically is seeing the highest profits yet continues to cut jobs

The largest employer in America is the GOVERNMENT

wrap your ignorant head around that
 
2012-07-23 10:11:23 PM  

gerrymander: I disagree. When a person speaks for himself (or as part of a self-inclusive group, such as a family Thanksgiving per your example, or a church congregation) about being aware of privileges, it can be humbling without being diminishing.

When a person speaks to others about their need to be aware of privilege, without identifying as part of that group, it is intended as a brickbat -- always and every time, in my experience. (Now, as my experience is far from total, I'm willing to grant I may be overlooking something, which is why I'm open to a counter-example. That we've gotten this far without one is indicative.)



"When a person speaks for himself (or as part of a self-inclusive group,"

So apparently you think John Scalzi was part of the group he was speaking of. Really.

" I'm willing to grant I may be overlooking something, which is why I'm open to a counter-example. That we've gotten this far without one is indicative."



i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-23 10:13:27 PM  

clowncar on fire: B-b-b-but Bush. Because Bush's final words to the freshmen president as he walked out the door were, "Son. You've got to promise me one thing. Carry on my legacy, drive the economy deep into the ground as far as you can. But don't just do this for me... do this for America!"



Huh? The budget passed under Bush that carried over into the middle of 2009 and the cost of the 2 wars he started is responsible for the debt

Here is a graph since you're so retarded

cdn.theatlantic.com
 
2012-07-23 10:23:40 PM  

lewismarktwo: namatad: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.

thank you!

Lol yes, white males feel no pain.


Of course they don't. That's why suicide rates of white men are on par with those of Native Americans, and at least twice that of any other group.

www.cdc.gov

Link
 
2012-07-23 10:25:10 PM  

Ambitwistor: Oops, with better quoting:

kasmel: The amount unaccounted for falls into the range of statistical error. 4-7%.

The study is not capable of accounting for things like discrimination leading to part-time vs. full-time jobs. In fact, it attributes 0% of the difference in part- vs. full-time job holding to discrimination, by assumption. Read the methodology. After making such assumptions, it arrives at the 4-7% figure, but these assumptions themselves are what are in question.

I don't know if data exists that can answer this question. Therefore, I don't think we can conclude that discrimination is negligible. Regardless, I do agree with you that we should be looking at known underlying social factors that influence career choices (e.g., decoupling health care from employment).


Whether significant discrimination exists or not, at this point, doesn't actually mean anything. We can't prove it except in specific cases, which is why the Lily Ledbetter act is fine. I dont believe it will have any impact on anything, let alone the statistics, but there's nothing wrong with having regulation to protect laborers.

I do not, personally, believe that there is endemic sex discrimination. But that's not a valuable data point. The fact that it's what is focussed on is what bothers me.

It's the sense of persecution that clouds the conversation more than anything. If we jump to the conclusion that people are being victimized in some way, rather than taking the time to address the things we know, and incrementally taking steps to improve, we'll never get past the argument of who's to blame.
 
2012-07-23 10:25:18 PM  
Wow, my parents could barely in society, and yet somehow I reached the age of majority by sponging off of anyone and everyone. Great article if you are looking for ways to avoid personal responsibility.

I was raised a poor black child, and that is why I try so hard to bring others out of poverty, and I don't get reimbursed by anyone.

Paying taxes is a loser's bet, you'll never see the upside unless you allow the government to have more control of your life.
 
2012-07-23 10:27:53 PM  

Mr. Right: imgod2u: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Thank you for proving my point. Congress does have the right to lay taxes and it is the duty of every productive citizen to pay those taxes. But I don't think you know what general Welfare means. It means that the federal expenditure must benefit all equally.


I think that's up for interpretation. Any cursory at the very history of taxation as well as the philosophical debates that led up to the Constitution would show it wasn't about benefiting everyone equally; it was about providing for the public good. That doesn't mean rich and poor get equal benefits but rather, that the public works provide an overall better society than otherwise would happen without it.

Welfare never referred to the public dole or charity until FDR. So, a road project for which taxes are laid benefits everyone equally. A common defense benefits everyone equally.

Your definition of "equally" seems to be quite tailored then. Even with your examples, there are those who benefit more than others. People who live near public roadways benefit far more than people who do not; though yes they all benefit from it. People with little property and land to lose, not to mention whose national loyalties are somewhat loose, benefit little from common defense; they'd live just fine under any ruling nation. So what exactly is your criteria for "benefiting equally"?

A welfare program that is restricted to mothers not married to the father of their children benefits only a small segment of society at the expense of everyone who does take responsibility for their children. A farm program that pays certain farmers to not raise corn benefits a very small segment of society at the expense of everyone who wasn't going to raise corn in the first place. Your quote also calls for taxes to be laid equally across all the states. When some states get exemptions from the Affordable Care Act but others do not, is that equal? Especially given that SCOTUS has called ACA a tax?

Again, your definition of "uniform" seems to be quite tailored. For instance, are you suggesting that tax rates for everyone everywhere is flat? If not, the very structure of the progressive income tax would seem to violate your interpretation of "uniform". Again, a cursory glance at the debates that led up to the taxation clause would show that that wasn't the intention. The intention was for a uniform tax code that wasn't biased. So the government can't punish Texas for being Texas by saying "everyone from Texas automatically pays 5% more in federal income tax".

There is nothing wrong with taxes, provided they really are used for the GENERAL welfare. Public charity was never the intent of the framers.

I agree with your later statement. But then again, the framers also never intended for black people or women to vote. Sometimes, the laws and the Constitution itself changes with the times. So, the question is, why do you suppose that these "charity" programs aren't beneficial to the general public? I would argue they are. It seems rather naive to ignore both the tangible and intangible benefits of a social safety net. One needs only look at countries who lack in such and compare things like crime rate, productivity and more importantly, social mobility.

Yes, that "welfare queen" may do nothing for society as you think. But that's:
1. One less desperate person on the streets. When it's the difference between starvation and violence/theft, most people, even good people, will choose the later.
2. One more roll in the human gene pool lottery. Those "welfare kids" of hers may statistically end up being welfare recipients as well -- and I'm definitely an advocate of welfare reform to change that statistic -- but it only takes one to be the next Einstein to radically change the world.

And before you go on about how private charity can take care of that. Obviously private charity didn't do a good enough job, elsewise people would never have felt the need to enact public programs for it to begin with.

Private charity was not only the intent, but is viewed as a mandate. The parable from Matthew (in the Bible) about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc., is a mandate for charity but the sense of the mandate is always singular, not plural. You (plural) are not mandated to be charitable, YOU (singular) are. And taking from some only to give to a few others is decidedly not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Are you advocating that private charity be mandated through law? Because otherwise, it doesn't do a fat lot of good.
 
2012-07-23 10:33:03 PM  

intelligent comment below: clowncar on fire: B-b-b-but Bush. Because Bush's final words to the freshmen president as he walked out the door were, "Son. You've got to promise me one thing. Carry on my legacy, drive the economy deep into the ground as far as you can. But don't just do this for me... do this for America!"


Huh? The budget passed under Bush that carried over into the middle of 2009 and the cost of the 2 wars he started is responsible for the debt

Here is a graph since you're so retarded

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 559x622]


Wow. My mediocre attempts at sarcasm resulted in a diarrhetic graph thingie.

You do realize that you are probably the last of the Fark denizens who don't have me on ignore, don't you?
 
2012-07-23 10:35:41 PM  
Somebody agrees with liberals and tells them what they want to hear, making them feel validated you mean?

/reads article

Yep.
 
2012-07-23 10:39:14 PM  

gerrymander: YoungLochinvar: Did you READ that second study? You know, that showed how WHITE MEN get far more responses than any other men?

Both studies show the same thing, when reduced along gender lines from the standpoint of privilege: women have it in extraordinary amounts, based upon the ratio of interest to responses. Which means Scalzi's "easy mode" metaphor doesn't apply for mate selection. May I trust that you see exactly how huge a gaping hole that puts into the metaphor?


Huge? I'd call it minor, especially since that's based entirely on the willingness of your fellow men to pursue women with reckless abandon.

But hey, you're bitter because you can't talk to girls or something, therefore sexism doesn't exist. Seriously - you live in a very sad reality. I'm very glad I'm me and not you right now...

/if I was less buzzed I'd respond in more detail but you wouldn't believe me anyway so why bother?
//yay vacation!
 
2012-07-23 10:40:24 PM  

randomjsa: Somebody agrees with liberals and tells them what they want to hear, making them feel validated you mean?

/reads article

Yep.


Fark: I feel validated.
 
2012-07-23 10:42:07 PM  

intelligent comment below: Mr. Right: For that trillion a year, we have the best defense and military in the world. The multiples of trillions we have spent on poverty programs has not notably reduced poverty. As I have pointed out, the poverty rate dips most significantly when the private sector economy is robust, not when there are multiple layers of government programs in place. Nothing pulls people out of poverty faster than a job. Nothing provides more jobs than the private sector, when it can profitably employ people.


What exactly do you see by having the "best defense and military in the world?"

Fewer Soviet, Wermacht, or British patrolling our streets. But we have to put up with douchebags that can't figure that one out.

Have many countries attacked America in the past 50 years? Does Canada and Mexico attack on a daily basis?

They haven't attacked us since the last time, have they? But they did attack us several times in our history, when we didn't have a large military.

Food stamps and other programs have better returns on investment than defense spending will ever have.

Because, unlike the military with it's technology spin-offs, Social Services spin-offs are; what the hell has Food Stamps done? Welfare?

As you pointed out? You can point anything out, that doesn't mean it's right.

Having a job gets you out of poverty, well no shiat? Guess what? America has had a lack of jobs for over a decade.

The private sector ironically is seeing the highest profits yet continues to cut jobs

The largest employer in America is the GOVERNMENT

wrap your ignorant head around that


Well, at least you know your head is so far in, you're seeing daylight
 
2012-07-23 10:42:17 PM  
If you "stopped reading" after only a few lines of the article, you're not doing this guy justice. John Scalzi is a fantastic author and deserves praise. After getting through that blog post, I have even more respect for the man. Pay it forward, and cheers to Mr. Scalzi.
 
2012-07-23 10:42:44 PM  

Pincy: Old Smokie: I got here on my own. Fark you

Except of course for the personal assistance who has to change your diapers. But ya, otherwise, on your own big guy.


Wow, I have a personal assistance? Someone should have let me know.
 
2012-07-23 10:43:46 PM  

gerrymander: vpb: gerrymander: No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.

Really? What was that about?

He did a huge post a month or two ago about how being a straight, white guy is playing a videogame on "easy mode". (No. I'm not going to link it, for the same reason I don't link to Stormfront. It's on his website if you care that much.) Apparently, work is easier, cancer kills less, and leggy supermodels are always knocking down the door for anyone holding the Straight, White Male ID Card -- and if you can't make it, what a pathetic loser you must be!

It's one thing to view society through the lens of who has or doesn't have "privilege". It's not a viewpoint I agree with or find constructive, but moral codes have to start somewhere. It's another thing entirely to use that lens as an excuse to denigrate an entire segment of society based on their skin color, gender and sexual preference. And doing that to a sizable fraction of your own core audience in an appeal to that same fraction is beyond stupid.

So, yeah. I'm done, and F7U12, Scalzi. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.


Good god, man. Just look at how stupid you are.
 
2012-07-23 10:51:30 PM  

intelligent comment below: tjfly: When he invalidates my argument about spending being too high lket me know. In the mean time, am I going to vote for the guy that just raised my taxes and has accumulated a bigger deficit in 3.5 yrs than Bush did in 8? No.


Obama has lowered your taxes

Bush is responsible for the deficit


Damn that nefarious Bush and his time machine!

img404.imageshack.us

/Graph from Wikipedia, may be suspect, but others on GIS show the same pattern.
//Fraction of GDP more informative than the straight numbers.
///...or did Bush pull a Sam Beckett and leapt into Reagan's body?
 
2012-07-23 10:51:33 PM  
Cyclometh: Good god, man. Just look at how stupid you are.
 
2012-07-23 10:52:16 PM  
I dont understand why people blame Obama for the deficit and economy.

The President proposes budgets, that is all he can do constitutionally.
Congress disposes , they can spend and tax, that is all they can do. They have the most power of all 3 branches but have been rather reluctant to use their power.
 
2012-07-23 10:54:34 PM  
Cyclometh: Good god, man. Just look at how stupid you are.



Let's try that again..

i113.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-23 11:00:55 PM  
The current construct of "racial privilege" was created by people who have an interest in perpetuating racism and racial divides rather than in eliminating those things. It is an idea that is intellectually (1) dishonest, (2) lazy, and, (3) immature. It's all about the quick scapegoating of innocents for crimes committed and washing one's hands of the matter in order to claim the moral high ground in discussions and arguments, rather than blaming the specific crimes on those who commit them and demanding redress.

First: Statistics ≠ probability. They are two separate things. Just because statistical measurements indicate that N% of a Group A has experienced X does NOT mean that EACH and EVERY individual member of Group A has (or had) a N% chance of experiencing X. Saying each and every member of a certain group, simply by virtue of his or her belonging to that group, has some kind of characteristic, tendency, advantage/disadvantage, or chance of doing/experiencing something just because of mass statistical measurements is fallacious. Applying this illogic to races of people is actually racist, whether intentional or not.

Second: A person should receive neither credit nor blame for the actions or circumstances of his or her ancestors. Neither should they ever receive credit or blame for the actions or circumstances of people who happen to be the same race/religion/class as the person. A person should only be judged by his or her own actions and own character.

Third: Mistreatment of individuals does not = "unfair privilege" for innocent individuals who are not mistreated. If a person is unfairly treated or is unfairly denied something because of his or her race, it's not unjust for other people to be treated fairly. Call it what it is-an injustice against the person who was unfairly treated by someone who is being racist. Being resentful of people who aren't unfairly treated and saying they are receiving an unfair "privilege" implies that they don't deserve to be treated fairly. It's like a 5-year-old kid in preschool who didn't get a toy to play with that everyone else was given, whining and getting pissy at the other kids who did nothing wrong, rather than confronting the person who denied him or her that toy and asking why he or she is being treated unfairly. A more extreme example-It would be ridiculous to claim that it is an "unfair privilege" for women who haven't been raped to not be raped. When a woman is raped, the crime committed is the rape, and the rapist is the one who should be faulted and punished. The injustice is not that other women didn't get raped. Not being raped isn't a "privilege."

Railing against the "unfair privilege" enjoyed by one group who are perceived to not have suffered injustices, rather than attacking the actual acts of injustice against members of the other group and calling them out for what they are, is dishonest and lazy, and only serves to prolong the problems rather than help eliminate them. If you are someone of Race A who has been treated poorly, abused, and/or unfairly denied something(s) because of your race (or someone of Race B with a guilty conscience, who enjoys taking offense by proxy), the right thing to do is to confront those specific injustices, call them out for what they are, and demand redress (and perhaps punishment for the offender), NOT to sit on your butt and whine about how everyone in Race B has some kind of unfair privilege because they are not suffering what you did. The only thing that kind of complaining does is mark the complainer as someone who desires to claim and indefinitely hold onto the (perceived) moral high-ground status as a "victimized class," much like people who claim to be "offended" by things in order to try and make themselves feel less weak/more powerful by restricting the freedom of others who have really done nothing wrong. If you are treated improperly because of your skin color, THAT is the injustice, NOT the fact that people of another skin color weren't mistreated.
 
2012-07-23 11:04:07 PM  

intelligent comment below: Diogenes The Cynic: But I guess we got to where we are from being white. That helped out a lot. Amirite?


I bet nobody discriminated against you when you were applying for jobs. I bet nobody denied you the right to move into a house because of your race. I bet the police didn't give you a hard time because of your race. I bet the public school you all went to was properly funded and gave you a quality education, try having that in inner cities with minorities.


White men are discriminated against for promotions all the time. Many companies have quotas and less qualified people get picked for promotions because of their race or gender all the time.
 
2012-07-23 11:04:41 PM  

Mr. Right:
Thank you for proving my point. Congress does have the right to lay taxes and it is the duty of every productive citizen to pay those taxes. But I don't think you know what general Welfare means. It means that the federal expenditure must benefit all equally. Welfare never referred to the public dole or charity until FDR. So, a road project for which taxes are laid benefits everyone equally. A common defense benefits everyone equally. A welfare program that is restricted to mothers not married to the father of their children benefits only a small segment of society at the expense of everyone who does take responsibility for their children. A farm program that pays certain farmers to not raise corn benefits a very small segment of society at the expense of everyone who wasn't going to raise corn in the first place. Your quote also calls for taxes to be laid equally across all the states. When some states get exemptions from the Affordable Care Act but others do not, is that equal? Especially given that SCOTUS has called ACA a tax?

There is nothing wrong with taxes, provided they really are used for the GENERAL welfare. Public charity was never the intent of the framers. Private charity was not only the intent, but is viewed as a mandate. The parable from Matthew (in the Bible) about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc., is a mandate for charity but the sense of the mandate is always singular, not plural. You (plural) are not mandated to be charitable, YOU (singular) are. And taking from some only to give to a few others is decidedly not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.



Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, Madison.

'These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.'
--Alexander Hamilton, 1791

Hamilton argued against your interpretation more than two centuries ago, his views largely prevailed at the time, and no Supreme Court has yet to disagree with them, yet you tell everyone who accepts that understanding of the Constitution that they don't know what "general welfare" means. That's unreasonable.

/the Democratic-Republicans will rise again!
//nope
 
2012-07-23 11:06:57 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: intelligent comment below: tjfly: When he invalidates my argument about spending being too high lket me know. In the mean time, am I going to vote for the guy that just raised my taxes and has accumulated a bigger deficit in 3.5 yrs than Bush did in 8? No.


Obama has lowered your taxes

Bush is responsible for the deficit

Damn that nefarious Bush and his time machine!

[img404.imageshack.us image 514x312]

/Graph from Wikipedia, may be suspect, but others on GIS show the same pattern.
//Fraction of GDP more informative than the straight numbers.
///...or did Bush pull a Sam Beckett and leapt into Reagan's body?


Guess who approved that 2009 budget?

Try this chart:
i.imgur.com

Record decrease in revenues coupled with massive increase in outlays? HURR DURR
 
2012-07-23 11:11:21 PM  
img812.imageshack.us

/O RLY?
 
2012-07-23 11:17:52 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: intelligent comment below: tjfly: When he invalidates my argument about spending being too high lket me know. In the mean time, am I going to vote for the guy that just raised my taxes and has accumulated a bigger deficit in 3.5 yrs than Bush did in 8? No.


Obama has lowered your taxes

Bush is responsible for the deficit

Damn that nefarious Bush and his time machine!

[img404.imageshack.us image 514x312]

/Graph from Wikipedia, may be suspect, but others on GIS show the same pattern.
//Fraction of GDP more informative than the straight numbers.
///...or did Bush pull a Sam Beckett and leapt into Reagan's body?


Yeah, that's the problem with bringing the GDP down to depressing lows.
In case you didn't know what the argument was about in the first place.
 
2012-07-23 11:18:29 PM  

SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.


Does corporate grade shoe polish taste better than the regular stuff? Cause you apologist boot licker making senseless points based on completely unsupported assumptions. I.e., you are a mindless hack stooge for your corporate masters.

First, please please show me how the private sector is magically hyper efficient at curing all the worlds ills, cause last I checked, the bottom line in supporting the most impoverished people in the US wasn't particularly lucrative; and my GED in Economics tells me that making money is kinda the point of being in business in the US. (Also, aren't there all those anecdotal stories of like 90% of charity donations going to 'overhead' and not the cause?)

Also, a social safety net based entirely on charity is so goddamn motherfarking insane as to be pants on head - counting to potato - mormon underwear level of insane.

You see, doofus, the gov't has a little thing called civil liberties they cannot violate. They can't denie you a service based on race, creed, color, country of origin, religious beliefs, lack of religious beliefs, how you've used your freedom of speech, gender, increasingly sexual orientation; you know, all that hippie Bill of Rights, Equal Protection, Due process shiat you apparently don't understand. Oh, and there is farking recouse through administrative and civil proceedings.

I really REALLY do not want to live in a world where the social safety net is based on whims of charity of the ultra-rich and administered at the fancy of (to pick one) nutbag religious whackos that tell you you ain't gonna eat tonight if you don't grovel on your knees before their priest.
 
2012-07-23 11:20:11 PM  
"Racial privilege"?

It's like having a +5 to archery because you're an Elf. Yeah, it's an advantage... if you don't bother to train up that stat. A Human who trains a lot in archery can easily make them a better archer then that Elf who relies on his 'advantage'. And an Elf that trains hard will hit the same stat cap the human does. Once the stat is maxed out, the 'advantage' disappears.

Translation: Being a StraightWhiteMale is a slight advantage... if you never work at improving yourself. Hard work by a non-StraightWhiteMale can easily make them more successful than a StraightWhiteMale who simply relies on their 'advantage'.

And I'm not even factoring in AA.
 
2012-07-23 11:23:57 PM  

cynispasm: Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]


Animals aren't going to riot and rob your ass if they get hungry.


THIS.
 
2012-07-23 11:32:56 PM  
What is the tax rate at which Congress can spend $1.68 for every dollar received and not keep putting us further in debt?

/taxes are not the problem
//it's the spending
 
2012-07-23 11:34:41 PM  

fredklein: "Racial privilege"?

It's like having a +5 to archery because you're an Elf. Yeah, it's an advantage... if you don't bother to train up that stat. A Human who trains a lot in archery can easily make them a better archer then that Elf who relies on his 'advantage'. And an Elf that trains hard will hit the same stat cap the human does. Once the stat is maxed out, the 'advantage' disappears.

Translation: Being a StraightWhiteMale is a slight advantage... if you never work at improving yourself. Hard work by a non-StraightWhiteMale can easily make them more successful than a StraightWhiteMale who simply relies on their 'advantage'.

And I'm not even factoring in AA.


All of that was actually addressed in the post. So what's your point? All else being equal, you're better off being a straight white male. I think we all agree that shouldn't be the case.
 
2012-07-23 11:48:44 PM  
Looking for that guy from Coach saying "when I was young we were poor! We were on food stamps! Nobody helped me!"

I am disappoint.
 
2012-07-23 11:51:30 PM  

YoungLochinvar: All else being equal, you're better off being a straight white male. I think we all agree that shouldn't be the case.


But all else IS NOT EQUAL. And to pretend it is is dishonest.

There have been stories posted here of white males (presumably Straight, too) who have had bad experiences because they grew up in a non-white area. Whites who grow up in minority neighborhoods have the same problems that blacks do in white neighborhoods. It's less 'Whites have an advantage' and more 'the majority has an advantage'. People are used to others people like themselves, and look with... suspicion?... on people who are different.

And, in the USA, the majority happens to be White.
 
2012-07-23 11:56:43 PM  

serial_crusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Just admit that you want people on government assistance to live in misery with no access to any of the comforts or conveniences of modern life and have done with it.

Oh, my only goal was to point out how wrong you were for pretending that your phone only cost 99 cents, not all the rest of that.


A smartphone is cheaper than a computer. Yes, this is true even when you talk about the $399 NetBook you can pick up at the WallyWorld on black Friday. That would require that a poor have the $399 all at one time, instead of spring out the (admittedly higher) cost of a cell contract over two years.

For you, a smartphone may seem to be a luxury because it duplicates the functions of your computer. Four them, it replaces the computer and is therefore no longer a luxury.

Spend some time outside of the suburbs, will ya?
 
2012-07-23 11:58:53 PM  

untaken_name: What is the tax rate at which Congress can spend $1.68 for every dollar received and not keep putting us further in debt?

/taxes are not the problem
//it's the spending


Good thing we just invented time travel because the year 2003 really needs to hear that.
 
2012-07-24 12:05:20 AM  

kidgenius: QDW: SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.

That's dumb.Just saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. Even trivial analysis shows this is not just silly but frankly delusional.

Freeways, CDC, FAA, the criminal justice system, fire departments, even... dare I say it... the military are not things that can be privately funded. Geez....

/Forehead sore from the enormous slap I just gave it.


Ahem...you must not be aware of the private companies that provide firefighting coverage. Rural Metro would be an example...they're a pretty big deal.


I have a big problem with private emergency services. Emergency workers are given a great deal of authority. Police officers are given the most, obviously, with the authority to search, seize, detain, arrest, restrain and use deadly force. Fire fighters are given the authority to enter property and restrict access to property. In my state, the senior fire official on an emergency scene is in command, in charge of all cops, EMS workers, or any other agency on scene. In my state, if the fire department is working at a scene, ownership of the property is legally transferred to the fire department for the duration of the incident, and transferred back to the owner once the situation is stabilized. EMS providers have the authority to override a patient's decision to seek medical care if certain criteria are met, essentially taking the person into custody. All three services are given exceptions to certain laws, most notably traffic laws. Stop signs, red lights, one way streets, speed limits and opposing lanes are all negotiable under the proper circumstances.

I argue that only agents of the government should be given the type of authority described above, especially concerning custody of citizens and entrance to property. Allowing a private company that type of power is wrong. And only on-duty agents of the government, under certain conditions, should be granted exemption from certain laws. Granting those exceptions to employees of private, for-profit corporations can lead to problems.
 
2012-07-24 12:11:42 AM  

intelligent comment below: Wow, your parents paid for private schools, private police and fire departments, private roads etc etc etc?


Shocker, not every township pays for this with taxes. You can have private roads and pay for it yourself if you dont want your taxes to go up. You might also be able to pay for your local fire protection just like other people sign up for trash service. If you dont buy it and your house burns down, the fire dept might just show up to make sure your house doesnt burn and catch your neighbors house on fire too.. you know, the one that paid for fire service.
it all can be private. It just depends.
 
2012-07-24 12:22:22 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: intelligent comment below: Wow, your parents paid for private schools, private police and fire departments, private roads etc etc etc?

Shocker, not every township pays for this with taxes. You can have private roads and pay for it yourself if you dont want your taxes to go up. You might also be able to pay for your local fire protection just like other people sign up for trash service. If you dont buy it and your house burns down, the fire dept might just show up to make sure your house doesnt burn and catch your neighbors house on fire too.. you know, the one that paid for fire service.
it all can be private. It just depends.



Sounds like you know how to run... any big or medium city in the country. Stop living in the golden era of the wild west and join reality sometime. Ah who am I kidding, libertarians are so far detached from reality
 
2012-07-24 12:22:28 AM  
So vote ...

.

... well, it doesn't really matter which side you're getting farked from, does it?
 
2012-07-24 12:23:37 AM  

untaken_name: /taxes are not the problem
//it's the spending



Tax revenue to the government has gone down year after year since Clinton started the balanced budget. Guess what? Debt has shot through the roof
 
2012-07-24 12:24:32 AM  

fredklein: YoungLochinvar: All else being equal, you're better off being a straight white male. I think we all agree that shouldn't be the case.

But all else IS NOT EQUAL. And to pretend it is is dishonest.

There have been stories posted here of white males (presumably Straight, too) who have had bad experiences because they grew up in a non-white area. Whites who grow up in minority neighborhoods have the same problems that blacks do in white neighborhoods. It's less 'Whites have an advantage' and more 'the majority has an advantage'. People are used to others people like themselves, and look with... suspicion?... on people who are different.

And, in the USA, the majority happens to be White.


So fark the minority. Sounds like a plan! And if we're just gonna toss out anecdotes and pretend they matter in the least, I lived in a majority-black neighborhood for a while and didn't have a single problem! Not one! Not even when I did stupid shiat like walk home totally drunk at 2am!

No matter what you think, in the USA, being born a straight white male IS an advantage. It's not a magical elixir, no, but why does this reality offend you so much? Maybe you ought to be asking yourself why the mention of reality gets under your skin so badly.
 
2012-07-24 12:25:43 AM  

caramba421: Ned Stark: roxtar10870: Taxes = theft... What good Might be done with the stolen money doesn't make it moral.
This guy is an idiot.

So, the government doesn't have the right to dispose goods as it sees fit? And isn't ownership merely an exclusive use contract you have with the government re: certain goods? If the government doesn't have the right to use "your" $20 to finance public works, why does it have a right to keep me from using your beach house?
I would posit that if taxes are theft, then property is theft.
Welcome comrade, always glad to see another commie on fark!

fark yeah. We're having a full-on raging kegger at roxtar10870's house. Feel free to trash the place. He can't call the cops because that would be Big Government Interference™ in the private affairs of citizens who just want to get high on bath salts and trash roxtar10870's place.


The government doesn't have the right to keep you from using my beach house, I have the right to keep you from using my beach house, just as I have no right to any of your stuff without your consent. Further, the government has no 'right' to MY $20, it extorts it from me... If you have a problem with the terms 'theft' or 'coercion' then you obviously are completely blind with regards to the relationship between you and your government.
 
2012-07-24 12:29:59 AM  

Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]


Has anyone else mentioned that this (while amusing) is retarded?

Yes? Oh, well. Second.

What is it about "libertarian" types that refuses to admit that we live in a society, and that we are not all just animals competing in some zero-sum game?

Because, really, that mentality is criminal. Sociopathic.
 
2012-07-24 12:34:26 AM  

Ned Stark: My taxes ARE to high. The problem is yours are too low.


Here's your missing "o". And don't forget to stay off the farkin' roads that I pay my taxes for.
 
2012-07-24 12:40:23 AM  

YoungLochinvar: All of that was actually addressed in the post. So what's your point? All else being equal, you're better off being a straight white male. I think we all agree that shouldn't be the case.


No. Thats only in this country. Go to some other country where they give an advantage to your desired social group.

lizyrd: I have a big problem with private emergency services. Emergency workers are given a great deal of authority. Police officers are given the most, obviously, with the authority to search, seize, detain, arrest, restrain and use deadly force. Fire fighters are given the authority to enter property and restrict access to property. In my state, the senior fire official on an emergency scene is in command, in charge of all cops, EMS workers, or any other agency on scene. In my state, if the fire department is working at a scene, ownership of the property is legally transferred to the fire department for the duration of the incident, and transferred back to the owner once the situation is stabilized. EMS providers have the authority to override a patient's decision to seek medical care if certain criteria are met, essentially taking the person into custody. All three services are given exceptions to certain laws, most notably traffic laws. Stop signs, red lights, one way streets, speed limits and opposing lanes are all negotiable under the proper circumstances.

I argue that only agents of the government should be given the type of authority described above, especially concerning custody of citizens and entrance to property. Allowing a private company that type of power is wrong.


Why is it wrong? They are just making them temporary agents of the government while your house burns down.
 
2012-07-24 12:41:00 AM  

roxtar10870: The government doesn't have the right to keep you from using my beach house


Uh, sure they do.

Each successive government is composed of a body of individuals who control and exercise control over political decision-making. Their function is to make and enforce laws and arbitrate conflicts.

Oh, wait, I forgot. LAWS ARE EVIL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Friggen anarchists, I swear.
 
2012-07-24 12:41:08 AM  

Gleeman: Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: intelligent comment below: tjfly: When he invalidates my argument about spending being too high lket me know. In the mean time, am I going to vote for the guy that just raised my taxes and has accumulated a bigger deficit in 3.5 yrs than Bush did in 8? No.

Record decrease in revenues coupled with massive increase in outlays? HURR DURR


The CBO was making up numbers since the late 80's (Reagan may or may not have authorized this in response to the massive fear generated by the recession and housing bust). The chart shows a surplus in late 90's-early 00's when Clinton declared a surplus based on projections that have never been shown accurate. You're looking at a graph of projected projections. It's hand waving and you're showing it off as fact 30 years later. *facepalm*
 
2012-07-24 12:47:11 AM  
Maybe a little clarification is in orde for those who vaunt the nobility of taxes:

1. You have no say in how much you're taxed.
2. You have no say in what your taxes pay for.
3. You have no choice but to pay them.

What about any of that sounds fair? What kind of idiot would sign a contract with those terms, let alone defend them as a "social" contract?

Taxes: your patriotic duty or we'll take everything you own and put you in jail. Never you mind that we flush trillions of dollars away on wars that put the nation in more danger than it was before, "invest" in the most poorly-run businesses in history because they're "too big to fail," and foster entire generations of free-riders who are taught in our failed schools, "I am, therefore: F*CKIN' GIMME IT NOW!"
 
2012-07-24 12:49:25 AM  

EZ1923: untaken_name: What is the tax rate at which Congress can spend $1.68 for every dollar received and not keep putting us further in debt?

/taxes are not the problem
//it's the spending

Good thing we just invented time travel because the year 2003 really needs to hear that.


I've been saying it since before then. Hell, Ronald Reagan's own farking special committee to investigate the budget crisis said it in the mid-80s. No one who could do anything about it cared to because they were benefiting from it.
 
2012-07-24 12:53:14 AM  

intelligent comment below: roxtar10870: All you have to do is ask yourself what the consequences of not paying are in order to see that the money is stolen from each and every one of us. I guess you could split hairs and point out the differences between theft and extorsion but the fact that both involve coersion should suffice.


Try this instead

Go to a restaurant and order their nicest meal

Enjoy it and when the bill comes, walk up and leave

Will they come after you demanding you pay? You should just reply that it's your right as a citizen to use any services you want and not have to pay for it, because paying a bill is THEFT


No dingbat, that would be theft. Theft is immoral.

A more appropriate analogy would be: I come into your home and cook you a meal when I know you're not hungry and try to make you pay for it even though you didn't ask for it and isn't very good anyway. If you resist, I summon all my uniformed, heavily armed friends waiting outside to come in and use force to MAKE you pay.
 
2012-07-24 12:54:33 AM  

sendtodave: roxtar10870: The government doesn't have the right to keep you from using my beach house

Uh, sure they do.

Each successive government is composed of a body of individuals who control and exercise control over political decision-making. Their function is to make and enforce laws and arbitrate conflicts.

Oh, wait, I forgot. LAWS ARE EVIL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Friggen anarchists, I swear.


How does a law stop a person from behaving a certain way?
 
2012-07-24 12:55:32 AM  

Lernaeus: What about any of that sounds fair? What kind of idiot would sign a contract with those terms, let alone defend them as a "social" contract?


...

Oh, my brain.

The social contract isn't something that anyone would sign. Because it doesn't come down to any one idiot. It comes down to society. All the idiots. It is a social contract. Social.

All it means is that a government is legitimate as long as society allows it to exist. That's it. Remember, this was a big step up from a government being legitimate because fark you, that's why, God said so.

So, if you can get society to change the government, you can amend the social contract more to your liking! Maybe. Good luck!

Until then, you're just whining that reality isn't fair, and that you don't like living in a society.
 
2012-07-24 12:57:40 AM  

untaken_name: How does a law stop a person from behaving a certain way?


sendtodave: Their function is to make and enforce laws and arbitrate conflicts.

to make and enforce laws

enforce


The man.
 
2012-07-24 01:00:37 AM  
Don't like taxes? Move to south of the Rio Grande. Of course civil servants won't do shiat for you unless you grease their palms with bribes, BUT IT IS NOT TAXES!

/get real, peeps got to get paid
 
2012-07-24 01:04:06 AM  

roxtar10870: intelligent comment below: roxtar10870: All you have to do is ask yourself what the consequences of not paying are in order to see that the money is stolen from each and every one of us. I guess you could split hairs and point out the differences between theft and extorsion but the fact that both involve coersion should suffice.


Try this instead

Go to a restaurant and order their nicest meal

Enjoy it and when the bill comes, walk up and leave

Will they come after you demanding you pay? You should just reply that it's your right as a citizen to use any services you want and not have to pay for it, because paying a bill is THEFT

No dingbat, that would be theft. Theft is immoral.

A more appropriate analogy would be: I come into your home and cook you a meal when I know you're not hungry and try to make you pay for it even though you didn't ask for it and isn't very good anyway. If you resist, I summon all my uniformed, heavily armed friends waiting outside to come in and use force to MAKE you pay.



That's not how taxes work you idiot

You are stealing from society by using all the government services yet refusing to pay for it, and calling the bill the IRS gives you as "stealing"

Go back to trolling somewhere else, your libertarian nonsense is old and tired
 
2012-07-24 01:07:09 AM  

sendtodave: The man.


No, that's not an answer. Please describe to me exactly how laws prevent behavior.
 
2012-07-24 01:08:57 AM  

intelligent comment below: using all the government services yet refusing to pay for it,


Just out of curiosity, do you really believe that taxes are the only way to pay for services?
 
2012-07-24 01:15:12 AM  

SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently


If those things will make money for the company doing it, otherwise they will not do them at all. If the only way money can be made by the private sector taking on a role is by receiving the funding that would have paid for the public version then the private sector will in fact charge more and deliver less, the difference being taken out in profit.
 
2012-07-24 01:15:49 AM  

untaken_name: sendtodave: The man.

No, that's not an answer. Please describe to me exactly how laws prevent behavior.


In general? By assigning penalties for harmful behavior, and by vesting power in the government, as a higher (and sometimes, hopefully, objective) third party, to enforce those penalties. Or, to arbitrate disputes, if we're talking civil law.
 
2012-07-24 01:16:49 AM  

elysive: namatad: RehcamretsneF:

So, what's the moral of the story? I'm supposed to close my eyes and write Obama a blank check so he can do whatever he wants with my tax money and he can set tax rates to whatever levels he deems necessary just because some guy benefited from some programs decades ago? Even if I or my business are benefiting from government programs, as a taxpayer I should still get a vote/a say in how the money is spent and who is spending the money.

I like social services and have benefited from a few myself. Thanks to grants and federal loans, not a generous grandpa, I went to UofC too. I don't see why the logical conclusion is that all current taxes and all current implementations of social programs are great and why everyone should kiss the government's Obama's ass. I worked for a state government using federal funds and it was a mess. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask governments t ...

/not sure why else O could have made his poorly worded statement except to try to guilt people or, more specifically, business owners into tolerating higher taxes...but I applaud everyone for taking this topic into wide tangents


WE GET IT ALREADY, HE'S BLACK
 
2012-07-24 01:20:36 AM  

gaspode: SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently

If those things will make money for the company doing it, otherwise they will not do them at all.


Bingo. The primary goal of the profit motive is profit. It isn't social well being. If social well being happens, great! If not, well, did we still make money? Great!

Sometimes (often) private enterprise is more efficient than the public sector, but it can not even claim to serve "the people" first.
 
2012-07-24 01:22:22 AM  

YoungLochinvar: So fark the minority. Sounds like a plan!


No one (except you) said that. In fact, whites have given* minorities Affirmative Action. That alone more than compensates for any advantage whites have. It's like an Orc biatching about an Elf's + 5 to archery (which increases the chance to hit by a small percentage), and being given a magic bow that guarantees a critical hit half the time. Then the Orc continues to biatch about Elven privilege....

*because whites control everything, right?

And if we're just gonna toss out anecdotes and pretend they matter in the least, I lived in a majority-black neighborhood for a while and didn't have a single problem! Not one! Not even when I did stupid shiat like walk home totally drunk at 2am!

And there are some blacks who can (and have) walk home drunk (in a "white" neighborhood) without being beaten by StormFront followers. What's your point?

No matter what you think, in the USA, being born a straight white male IS an advantage.

Sure, like an Elf having +5 to archery. But a non-Elf who puts all their training points into archery will kick the ass of an Elf who simply glides along on their "advantage".

And a non-white who works hard will surpass the whites who don't.

It's not a magical elixir, no,

Then why treat it as such?? Yes, a runner who starts 10 feet (or 100 for that matter) in front of the starting line has an advantage over the other marathon runners. But a runner who trains hard and tries hard can easily make up that lead during the race. An early lead does not the race make. So why do you make such a big deal of it?

but why does this reality offend you so much?

It offends me to be blamed for something

1) I had no choice in
2) I have no control over
and 3) I cannot change.

Being White is an advantage... in some cases. It is a disadvantage in others. Being non-white is the same- advantageous sometimes, dis-advantageous sometimes. As a StaightWhiteMale, I cannot cry 'sexism', 'racism', or 'discrimination', to get what I want.

"Don't waste your time on jealousy; sometimes you're ahead, sometimes
you're behind...the race is long, and in the end, it's only with yourself."

/wear sunscreen
 
2012-07-24 01:29:03 AM  

sendtodave: Until then, you're just whining that reality isn't fair, and that you don't like living in a society.


To be fair, he doesn't like living in THIS society.

intelligent comment below: You are stealing from society by using all the government services yet refusing to pay for it, and calling the bill the IRS gives you as "stealing"


Government services like starting wars on the other side of the planet?

I think the point is, many people don't want "services" like that. Hence the analogy of "cook[ing] you a meal when I know you're not hungry and try to make you pay for it even though you didn't ask for it".
 
2012-07-24 01:42:48 AM  

Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]


The fact that you posted this and think it makes any sense whatsoever, even in the most tortured convoluted way, proves you are as dumb as a bag of hammers, have no sense (common or otherwise), and your misapprehension of anything resembling humanity makes you unfit to consume the same air the rest of us do.
 
2012-07-24 01:47:40 AM  

fredklein: To be fair, he doesn't like living in THIS society.


Fair enough.

i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-24 01:52:33 AM  

Rincewind53: RichieLaw: citation needed.jpeg
vpb: Really? What was that about?

I'm guessing gerrymander is just upset that Scalzi wrote a very good article called "Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is" and he disagrees with the concept, even though the article is 100% correct, 0% racist, and very well-written.


OK, as much as I hate taxes, I was kinda onboard with him here until I read the above link. And what a load of bullshiat IT is. I would rather be any number of combinations these days rather than what I am, a straight white male.
 
2012-07-24 01:55:38 AM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: WE GET IT ALREADY, HE'S BLACK


That's the only response you have is to bring up his race? Sorry to break it to you, but there are plenty of valid reasons to dislike Obama. I was hoping a Democrat and lawyer of constitutional law would be more civil-rights minded and less interested in military engagements than Bush but I was painfully disappointed.

/I'm not voting for some jerk who wants to overturn Roe v Wade either, but Obama should squirm and he should have a very tough election.
 
2012-07-24 02:29:22 AM  

roxtar10870: A more appropriate analogy would be: I come into your home and cook you a meal when I know you're not hungry and try to make you pay for it even though you didn't ask for it and isn't very good anyway. If you resist, I summon all my uniformed, heavily armed friends waiting outside to come in and use force to MAKE you pay.


What's rotten about the present system is there is no way for people like you to get the freedom you richly deserve.
 
2012-07-24 02:57:22 AM  

sendtodave: untaken_name: sendtodave: The man.

No, that's not an answer. Please describe to me exactly how laws prevent behavior.

In general? By assigning penalties for harmful behavior, and by vesting power in the government, as a higher (and sometimes, hopefully, objective) third party, to enforce those penalties. Or, to arbitrate disputes, if we're talking civil law.


None of that has anything to do with preventing behavior. How does the punishment for breaking a law apply before the law is broken?
 
2012-07-24 03:01:12 AM  

Russky: tooeasy: raising taxes in economic downturns generally isn't wise, but they'll do what they're going to do

Giving tax breaks at a time of war isn't wise either but that' didn't stop anyone did it.


Yeah, someone did something stupid, so it justifies doing another stupid thing
 
2012-07-24 03:01:19 AM  

gibbon1: roxtar10870: A more appropriate analogy would be: I come into your home and cook you a meal when I know you're not hungry and try to make you pay for it even though you didn't ask for it and isn't very good anyway. If you resist, I summon all my uniformed, heavily armed friends waiting outside to come in and use force to MAKE you pay.

What's rotten about the present system is there is no way for people like you to get the freedom you richly deserve.


That's not true. The Amish aren't complaining about government interference. At least, not as much as non-Amish are. They also don't (in general) have contracts with the government like social security, driver's license, business licenses, etc. I wonder if there's any connection there.
 
2012-07-24 03:05:43 AM  
What a long winded farking blowhard. I got to the second paragraph and already wished the author was watching a midnight showing of Batman in Colorado with front row seats.
 
2012-07-24 03:45:38 AM  

untaken_name: intelligent comment below: using all the government services yet refusing to pay for it,

Just out of curiosity, do you really believe that taxes are the only way to pay for services?



No, you can go off the map, live off the land, and barter for any services or goods you need. Feel free to setup your own wild west town somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
 
2012-07-24 03:47:35 AM  

fredklein: Government services like starting wars on the other side of the planet?

I think the point is, many people don't want "services" like that. Hence the analogy of "cook[ing] you a meal when I know you're not hungry and try to make you pay for it even though you didn't ask for it".



Welcome to Democracy?

You don't like what the government does, you vote in representatives who try to change that.

Otherwise you pay the tax man based on how much you earn.

I know, it's a horrible living. So oppressive.
 
2012-07-24 03:48:14 AM  

crispyone: What a long winded farking blowhard. I got to the second paragraph and already wished the author was watching a midnight showing of Batman in Colorado with front row seats.



Wow, this is quite disturbing. You should seek mental help asap
 
2012-07-24 03:54:44 AM  

intelligent comment below: untaken_name: intelligent comment below: using all the government services yet refusing to pay for it,

Just out of curiosity, do you really believe that taxes are the only way to pay for services?


No, you can go off the map, live off the land, and barter for any services or goods you need. Feel free to setup your own wild west town somewhere in the middle of nowhere.


So you're admitting in a public forum that you don't know about user fees? That's both very brave and very ignorant of you.
 
2012-07-24 03:57:57 AM  

untaken_name: That's not true. The Amish aren't complaining about government interference. At least, not as much as non-Amish are. They also don't (in general) have contracts with the government like social security, driver's license, business licenses, etc. I wonder if there's any connection there.


Amish pay taxes like everyone else, excepting social security, excepting when they take ordinary jobs outside their communities, in which case they do. And government regulations do apply to them. I suspect the difference is the Amish in general are bought up with the attitude that petty whining is unseemly. Whining on the internets for various reasons is right out.

Certainly does seem like spoiled whining to piss and moan about paying taxes, even more so to piss and moan about people considerably well off having to pay taxes, to a government that historically appears to bend over backwards to accommodate people such as the Amish.
 
2012-07-24 04:05:50 AM  

gibbon1: untaken_name: That's not true. The Amish aren't complaining about government interference. At least, not as much as non-Amish are. They also don't (in general) have contracts with the government like social security, driver's license, business licenses, etc. I wonder if there's any connection there.

Amish pay taxes like everyone else, excepting social security, excepting when they take ordinary jobs outside their communities, in which case they do. And government regulations do apply to them. I suspect the difference is the Amish in general are bought up with the attitude that petty whining is unseemly. Whining on the internets for various reasons is right out.

Certainly does seem like spoiled whining to piss and moan about paying taxes, even more so to piss and moan about people considerably well off having to pay taxes, to a government that historically appears to bend over backwards to accommodate people such as the Amish.


The Amish don't, as a rule, pay income tax. This is because they aren't, as a rule, defined as "taxpayers" according to the US Code, and thus they aren't required to. Government regulations only apply to them if they enter into a government-regulated enterprise. This should be obvious, but since most people can't conceive of an existence with no participation in government-regulated enterprises, they don't believe that it's even possible. However, there are about 14 million Americans who don't have social security numbers, don't pay income tax, and are not eligible for the benefits of taxpayers. I'm not saying their way is superior - I'm saying it's fair. They don't pay taxes, and they don't get welfare and other benefits that taxpayers receive. I was simply responding to the allegation that there is no way to live without paying taxes, or that if you DO live without paying taxes you're necessarily leeching services that taxes pay for. That's just not reality. It is POSSIBLE to steal the benefits of a taxpayer without being one, true, but it's also possible to live without stealing AND without paying taxes or receiving their benefits. That's all I was saying. I'm not making a value judgement about what people should or should not do.
 
2012-07-24 04:07:25 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-24 04:10:54 AM  
thnksqrd 2012-07-23 08:49:19 PM

[paraphrased: Gee, all them ghettoblax reproducing at a stewpid rate!]
"Ain't you gonna use a rubber baby?"


i.imgur.com

/runs out of thread screaming
//please try not to fark the commas again :3
 
2012-07-24 04:12:42 AM  

Villemus Fortis: [images.sodahead.com image 500x416]


Hm... what's the best response to this pile of stupid?

"shiat, we're giving food stamps to bears now?"
or
"I missed the part where we were creating national parks for all the poor and underachievers, and giving them the physical attributes of animals to survive in the wild. Can I call dibs on a park in SoCal and some flippers? You should come too, you'd look better with a literal blowhole."
or
"The reason you don't want wild animals to become dependent on humans is that they end up dying when winter comes around. We give out food stamps to humans so they *don't* die when winter comes around."
 
2012-07-24 04:26:35 AM  

Tumunga: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.

I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.Just out of the Army in 1986, applied to be a policeman in Indianapolis. Was told by the person taking the applications at the City-County building, "If you're not black, or a woman, you're wasting your time. They're not going to hire you."

I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.

I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life. Was chased out of Willard Park in Indianapolis by a group of knife wielding blacks for attempting to play basketball while being white.

I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.

I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition. I could banter on this subject for not having my good work noticed, etc., but this one sounds llike someone is crying a little too much

I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter. Lived at no less than 10 different addresses while growing up. I remember stretches of living in the station wagon, and being dropped off at school for days at a time while my cash strapped parents were trying to find a place to live. One thanksgiving, all my mom had in the kitchen was a loaf of bread, some sugar, and some butter. We had fried toast with sugar on it, because that was a farkin' treat for us.

and NOT ONCE did my parents go on the dole from the government.

THAT is what "guilt ridden rich libtard white privelage" means.

I hate stupid libtard phuqs. Not you regular libtards, but the ones that think I should feel guilty for being who I am. Walk in my "white privilaged" shoes for a bit, then think about the stupid list you came up with.


You should track down Scalzi's privilege post, instead of getting upset at the paraphrasings here - unless you think the average Fark user is a better writer than a guy who writes so well both Glenn Reynolds and Cory Doctorow (I tried to find another issue where both of them agreed on something and I'm only finding unsourced references and secondhand allusions) recommend his book.
 
2012-07-24 04:30:41 AM  

untaken_name: So you're admitting in a public forum that you don't know about user fees? That's both very brave and very ignorant of you.



So you're admitting in a public forum that you have no idea how real cities actually work? That's very brave and very ignorant of you. Very.
 
2012-07-24 04:37:07 AM  

intelligent comment below: untaken_name: So you're admitting in a public forum that you don't know about user fees? That's both very brave and very ignorant of you.


So you're admitting in a public forum that you have no idea how real cities actually work? That's very brave and very ignorant of you. Very.


Gee, you're right. There aren't ANY user fees involved in running a city. Herp derpy do. Do you ever actually understand anything about anything you post about? It sure doesn't seem like it.
 
2012-07-24 04:37:50 AM  

fredklein: YoungLochinvar: (...snip...)


Generally, nicely put. Notably:

* a non-Elf who puts all their training points into archery will kick the ass of an Elf who simply glides along on their "advantage".
* a non-white who works hard will surpass the whites who don't.
* An early lead does not the race make


And this gets a 'THIS!' -- "It offends me to be blamed for something 1) I had no choice in 2) I have no control over and 3) I cannot change." I might only add 4) I didn't stop you from doing.

\ Had a spiffy forearm-mounted crossbow for my L23 Theif/Assassin (human). It was blessed by a true neutral Cleric of Elfwind to have +6 to hit. It only did max of 2d4 by itself, but could deliver a mean payload.

\\ Had dual mechanisms to allow for carrying 2 bolts locked and cocked.

\\\ Soooo long ago... years before they put the 'A' in AD&D!

/ Keeping him alive for 23 levels was none too easy with 10 STR and 6 CHR**. Guess that's what TFA and you both seem to be saying??

** Art imitates life? lol
 
2012-07-24 04:54:43 AM  
Sorry, America, but the lowest setting is now ASIAN MALE, and (nothing personal, fine Asian gay fellas) sexual preference does not factor into it nearly as much if you're Asian.

450ish posts of fail.
 
2012-07-24 04:56:55 AM  

OgreMagi: Because blaming "white privilege" makes is acceptable to not take responsibility for your own actions.

You are correct. It is not my problem.


Huh, and here I thought that maybe the fact that, for any kind of crime you can name, the chance of a black defendant being convicted versus a white defendant, or of a black's sentence being higher than a white's for the same crime - which is a pattern that's held steady for, I dunno, 150 years? - might have contributed to the fact that a disproportionate number of black men and women are rather blase about single-parent households.


And consider this: no one named you as personally responsible for these problems, but you take any discussion of society's failings as a personal attack. You've projected that much of your own beliefs and self-worth onto how you perceive American culture and society. There are pretty much only two possibilities for how that's possible: you either have an insanely overgrown ego and are a clinical narcissist who needs medication and therapy; or, you've lived a life of such unchallenged privilege that your idea of not just "normal" but "bare minimum" is vastly out of line with other people's.


And that's all Scalzi's point was. Show a little humility and grace.
 
2012-07-24 05:15:07 AM  

Wangiss: Sorry, America, but the lowest setting is now ASIAN MALE, and (nothing personal, fine Asian gay fellas) sexual preference does not factor into it nearly as much if you're Asian.

450ish posts of fail.


Nah, dude. Nah.

Asian guys have to work their butts off to prove themselves.

Hell, white guys have an easier go of it even in Asia.

/waiguoren in China
 
2012-07-24 05:54:37 AM  

untaken_name: Gee, you're right. There aren't ANY user fees involved in running a city. Herp derpy do. Do you ever actually understand anything about anything you post about? It sure doesn't seem like it.



You mean I don't have to pay for public schools I don't send kids to? Or roads I don't drive on? Awesome! Where do I sign up?
 
2012-07-24 05:58:20 AM  

dugitman: The confusion people have with this headline and TFA is weird.


Indeed.

I thought the article was excellent and understood it completely, but I didn't go off the derp end as some have in this thread.
 
2012-07-24 06:02:04 AM  

skinnycatullus: WTF is going on in this thread?


Everyone accidentally the bottle. THE WHOLE FARKING BOTTLE!!
 
2012-07-24 06:41:59 AM  

Primum: Stank ass people can take a bath and use Axe.


...Axe? No thanks, I'd rather be stank ass.
 
US1
2012-07-24 06:48:04 AM  

MyRandomName: I love this strawman liberals are setting up to defend Obama. Nobody is arguing success happens in a vacuum. The argument is what is responsible for a successful business. A lot of hard work goes into creating a business, the government does not get to say they are mostly responsible for that as Obama implies. Taking a long reading of Obama's inference, everyone would be successful merely because roads exist. That is not the case whatsoever. Individuals utilize public shares to the best of their capacity. The web we know today would not exist without capitalists improving on the darpanet infrastructure.

If Obama wants credit for all successful business, he has to take credit for business that fails as well. For every road that allowed the transport of good there is a regulation that made the market to costly for some to enter; whether it is eminent domain, costly regulations, cost of licensing (hair dressers), etc. Government can help or hinder a business. But it takes an individual to CREATE the business, not government. That is what Obama said wrong, individuals do create business.


How is this a strawman? This is the crux of the debate. big business wants to privatise profits but publicize risk
 
US1
2012-07-24 07:02:43 AM  

SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.


how many private charities are found to be frauds daily? private sectors so great thats why it needs a bailout from the government once every 10 years. if u lived through the bush years and you still think everything should be private theres no hope for you. you are either a troll or an idiot.

coro\porations are nothing but swindlers and thieves. if you need proof i guess you have been under a rock for the last 8 years. heres some proof the bailouts from 2008, or the s&l bailouts, airline bailouts, auto bailouts, hsbc scandals going on right now, the tons of ponzi scandals from bernie to rothstein and the 10's of others

the private sector????? are you really taking drugs or what
 
US1
2012-07-24 07:10:04 AM  

intelligent comment below: untaken_name: Gee, you're right. There aren't ANY user fees involved in running a city. Herp derpy do. Do you ever actually understand anything about anything you post about? It sure doesn't seem like it.


You mean I don't have to pay for public schools I don't send kids to? Or roads I don't drive on? Awesome! Where do I sign up?


by that logic, since large corporations benefit from college grads, the entire road system ect. they should pay for all of it;
 
2012-07-24 08:05:13 AM  

roxtar10870: Taxes = theft... What good Might be done with the stolen money doesn't make it moral.
This guy is an idiot.


Interestingly, to me, I was reading a history account of the early USA and taxes levied to support the Continental Army and other government activities. It's fascinating to see how high taxes on individuals could reach and the response to the tax dodgers even back then. Hint: if you didn't pay, they took.

It may surprise some people to realize that they do not really own land or property, or money, or in circumstances, their life. Wherever you are, your country is loaning your property, money and land to you under law. It requests a piece of that back as "taxes" to attend to matters considered important by your country's representatives. Your country backs this up with an army and the ability to forcibly separate you from property, money or life. In return it gives you the contents of it's social and legal contract, which you agree to, by your choice to live in it.

Is it right? It's a grey area in that it's neither right nor wrong, it is just the state of reality. There are no true free agents; in the end it is who makes decisions and who has the power to back them up by force (and gun ownership is another discussion in that direction).

The popular saying "Freedom isn't Free" is true. Freedom in a country tends to be bestowed by *subtraction* of restriction, not bestowed by assumption. In the USA, the Declaration of Independence, which is not the de facto social contract, declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the core rights of individuals, but definition of those core rights are pieced out in the Constitution but not fully addressed, as it is a governing document. Without violating any specific individual right, taxes are allowed to be imposed by Congress, and that restriction is a valid part of the US social contract.

Now, to devolve into a common observation and suggestion: Enjoying any social privilege without contributing your share when you have the means to do so is theft from society. Taxes are the cost of living in a structured society. You do not have protection or freedom from taxes, so they are not theft. If you don't want to pay tax, there are countries where the social contract, and taxes generally, are small or nonexistent. There are opportunities in those places for a well armed and protected overlord in those places as long as your army allows you to live.
 
2012-07-24 08:43:16 AM  

US1: SlothB77: Scalzi is oblivious to the fact the private sector can do all of the things the public sector can do - and more efficiently. Instead of paying high taxes now that will be redistributed by government, he could donate his money through private charities to achieve the same ends. And probably more efficiently.

how many private charities are found to be frauds daily? private sectors so great thats why it needs a bailout from the government once every 10 years. if u lived through the bush years and you still think everything should be private theres no hope for you. you are either a troll or an idiot.

coro\porations are nothing but swindlers and thieves. if you need proof i guess you have been under a rock for the last 8 years. heres some proof the bailouts from 2008, or the s&l bailouts, airline bailouts, auto bailouts, hsbc scandals going on right now, the tons of ponzi scandals from bernie to rothstein and the 10's of others

the private sector????? are you really taking drugs or what


Charities have a greater motive to prevent fraud and abuse than taxpayers.
Businesses don't need bailouts. They never needed bailouts. What they need to do is learn to become competitive, or go out of business. It doesn't help anyone to go out of your way to fund the losers.
Bush was not a free-marketeer. He was into cronyism. Crony Capitalism =/= Capitalism.
(seriously, Bush was your go-to guy? What the fark?)

And you do have trust in corporations. You use google with the assumption that they wont willingly deceive you. You give money to cashiers assuming they wont shortchange you. You buy gas being pretty sure its at the octane level its listed under. You don't buy a laptop, and think there's a snake inside it. You do trust corporations already. A lot. If you didn't you would be making your own clothes from the inside of your own hut.
 
2012-07-24 09:19:09 AM  

intelligent comment below: Welcome to Democracy?

You don't like what the government does, you vote in representatives who try to change that.



Don't blame me, I voted for Kang.
 
2012-07-24 09:28:15 AM  

intelligent comment below: Otherwise you pay the tax man based on how much you earn.


When I walk into a grocery store and buy a can of peas, I pay $1.

When a poor person walks into the same grocery store and buys he same can of peas, they pay... $1.

When Bill farking Gates walks into the same grocery store and buys the same can of peas, he pays... $1.

Paying for what you get is fair.


When I pay taxes, I pay $10,000. (Just an example)

When a poor person pays taxes, they end end up paying $10

When Bill Gates pays taxes, he ends up paying $1,000,000.

Yet, we all get the same "services" from the Federal Government. Paying more for the same thing is NOT fair.

Now, differing Local taxes, I can understand. A 'rich' town has to collect more to keep the streets paved in solid gold, while a 'poor' town collects less... and provided less. But at the Federal level, we all get the same things from the government. And thus, we should all pay the same.
 
2012-07-24 10:09:55 AM  
Scalzi is a great writer. I think I've read every one of his books. However, I'd go to him for political or finical advice as often as I would go to Einstein for fashion advice. I use to read his blog all the time until he wrote that he "couldn't imagine a worse president than Bush" I'm sitting there thinking "Dude your a scifi writer, your job is to imagine things. I can imagine a worse president than Bush, HECK we've HAD worse presidents than Bush."

It became very obvious that he wasn't thinking but was just another political zealot. Same as any whacked out religious nuts that he makes fun of.

I'll still recommend reading his books. He writes some fun snappy dialog.
 
2012-07-24 10:15:35 AM  

fredklein: Yet, we all get the same "services" from the Federal Government. Paying more for the same thing is NOT fair.


I would say a guy who is a billionaire gets far more than the average joe in terms of services from the fed.

The poor guy probbaly gets more (in terms of money compared to what he pays) than the rich guy diorectly, but you have to be very myopic to not see how that help provides the level of stability that allows for rich people to exist.

at the end fo the day the rich guy "gets" far more out of the society that the fed helps support so I don't know how you can argue they "get" the same thing.
 
2012-07-24 10:19:43 AM  

fredklein: intelligent comment below: Otherwise you pay the tax man based on how much you earn.


When I walk into a grocery store and buy a can of peas, I pay $1.

When a poor person walks into the same grocery store and buys he same can of peas, they pay... $1.

When Bill farking Gates walks into the same grocery store and buys the same can of peas, he pays... $1.

Paying for what you get is fair.


When I pay taxes, I pay $10,000. (Just an example)

When a poor person pays taxes, they end end up paying $10

When Bill Gates pays taxes, he ends up paying $1,000,000.

Yet, we all get the same "services" from the Federal Government. Paying more for the same thing is NOT fair.

Now, differing Local taxes, I can understand. A 'rich' town has to collect more to keep the streets paved in solid gold, while a 'poor' town collects less... and provided less. But at the Federal level, we all get the same things from the government. And thus, we should all pay the same.



Let me ask you a question...do you think if you were a private insurance company that you could run it in a way where either A) all covered individuals pay the same or B) people payed based on usage?

I'll give you a hint...neither are possible.

If its a private insurance (I am defining this as being a policy purchased by the insured) either of these scenarios are unsustainable business models.

In scenario A, young healthy people would never CHOOSE to buy the policy because the cost that you would be required to pass on to them in order to cover costs of the heavy users would make it far more expensive than a policy that was tailored around just them.

On the other hand, if you went with scenario B), it would be great for low usage customers, but the cost of the premiums for the heavy users would be so prohibitive than none of them could afford it.


The reality is that all insurance companies charge rates in such a way that those who use the least subsidize those who use the most.

Guess what?...taxes and government programs are the same. Its kind of the entire purpose of a government actually.

I mean, have any of you ever thought why it is you are a U.S. citizen?

You probably think its because you were born here and its automatic. That's true, but why do you REMAIN one?

Its because you have (subconsciously at least) bought into the social contract that exists between our government and its people. You realize that living in the United States affords you certain protections, rights, and privileges. You understand that our government is the collective will to act by all Americans on behalf of all Americans. What, for some reason, people tend to forget however is that this contract not only provides for protections, rights, and privileges, but also for duties and responsibilities. Guess what we have to do in order to allow this grand collective experiment of ours to function?

1) Vote in elections
2) Be willing to serve if needed
3) Obey the laws
4) Pay our taxes
5) Be informed and educated on the issues that effect our nation

Considering what we get in exchange for these things, I think its a pretty good deal.

If you believe it isn't...If you wish to no longer avail yourself of our protection, our governance, our infrastructure, our social safety net, our educational system, and laws, our rights, and our freedoms then i have a very simple solution for you.

GET. THE. fark. OUT.

Until then, shut the fark up and pay your goddamn taxes.

Please and thank you.
 
2012-07-24 10:22:13 AM  

liam76: I would say a guy who is a billionaire gets far more than the average joe in terms of services from the fed.


So, the military protects Bill Gates more then you or me?

The Interstate highways are smoother when Bill Gates drives them?


How, exactly, does a rich person get "far more" from the federal government?
 
2012-07-24 10:37:56 AM  

fredklein: liam76: I would say a guy who is a billionaire gets far more than the average joe in terms of services from the fed.

So, the military protects Bill Gates more then you or me?

The Interstate highways are smoother when Bill Gates drives them?


How, exactly, does a rich person get "far more" from the federal government?


Well you could have read the next line.

The poor guy probbaly gets more (in terms of money compared to what he pays) than the rich guy diorectly, but you have to be very myopic to not see how that help provides the level of stability that allows for rich people to exist.

And now lets move on to your examples.

Military - Bill gates has a lot more to protect than the average Joe. Look at it like Insurance. A guy who has billions is going to pay a lot more than a guy who has a 50k house and a 15 year old honda. So yes I would argue he "gets more" out of the military.

Highways - My benefit from the highway is cheap goods, ability to travel, etc. The rich guy gets all that plus he has become rich (or richer) by having them.
 
2012-07-24 10:38:20 AM  
>"self-made" man
>military brat
NOPE
/farking welfare project
 
2012-07-24 10:40:51 AM  

Prevailing Wind: Let me ask you a question...do you think if you were a private insurance company that you could run it in a way where either A) all covered individuals pay the same ?


Isn't that how it works? If I buy insurance, they charge me a certain amount. This amount is not based on my income, but rather the type of policy I choose. Thus, Bill Gates would pay the same for the same insurance. (Of course, he'd probably pay more for a much better plan, but that's apples and oranges.)

In scenario A, young healthy people would never CHOOSE to buy the policy

Then they wouldn't get the coverage. What's the problem?

If you believe it isn't...If you wish to no longer avail yourself of our protection, our governance, our infrastructure, our social safety net, our educational system, and laws, our rights, and our freedoms then i have a very simple solution for you.

GET. THE. fark. OUT.


Protection? Cops "protect" themselves these days.
Governance? I'm not a child- I can govern myself, thanks.
Infrastructure? Why are our roads falling apart? Why are we one of the worst 'first world' countries when it comes to Broadband?
Social Safety net? Never had to rely on it.
Educational system? Don't even get me started. When my parents grew up, kids had to memorize their multiplication tables up to 20 x 20. When I was in school, it was 12 x 12. Now, I think it's 10 x 10... and the kids can use calculators. Teachers spend most the school year 'teaching to test'- making sure the kids can pass the government mandated tests, rather than actually, you know... teaching them. Kids don't learn logic or critical thinking anymore.
Laws? More and more are passed every day... often without the 'lawmakers' even reading them.
Rights? We have fewer and fewer every day.

Yet, despite all this, I don't want to leave.

I'd rather stay, and work to fix the system.
 
2012-07-24 10:51:23 AM  

liam76: How, exactly, does a rich person get "far more" from the federal government?

Well you could have read the next line.

The poor guy probbaly gets more (in terms of money compared to what he pays) than the rich guy diorectly, but you have to be very myopic to not see how that help provides the level of stability that allows for rich people to exist.


I ask how the rich get "far more", and you reply with a sentence about how the poor actually get more?

Military - Bill gates has a lot more to protect than the average Joe.

That makes no sense. The military protects all Americans, rich or poor. They protect rich 100% and poor 100%.

Look at it like Insurance. A guy who has billions is going to pay a lot more than a guy who has a 50k house and a 15 year old honda.

Not if he gets the same policy. He only pays more if he gets a bigger policy.

Highways - My benefit from the highway is cheap goods, ability to travel, etc. The rich guy gets all that plus he has become rich (or richer) by having them.

So have you- the money you save by having "cheap goods" is money that you can save, making you richer. Oh, and a rich man doesn't just 'become rich' because a highway is nearby- he needs to use that highway, say by moving truckloads of product on it. In which case, he's paying taxes on the trucks, taxes on the gas, taxes on the product... he plays plenty already.
 
2012-07-24 10:51:54 AM  

fredklein: Prevailing Wind: Let me ask you a question...do you think if you were a private insurance company that you could run it in a way where either A) all covered individuals pay the same ?

Isn't that how it works? If I buy insurance, they charge me a certain amount. This amount is not based on my income, but rather the type of policy I choose. Thus, Bill Gates would pay the same for the same insurance. (Of course, he'd probably pay more for a much better plan, but that's apples and oranges.)

In scenario A, young healthy people would never CHOOSE to buy the policy

Then they wouldn't get the coverage. What's the problem?

If you believe it isn't...If you wish to no longer avail yourself of our protection, our governance, our infrastructure, our social safety net, our educational system, and laws, our rights, and our freedoms then i have a very simple solution for you.

GET. THE. fark. OUT.

Protection? Cops "protect" themselves these days.
Governance? I'm not a child- I can govern myself, thanks.
Infrastructure? Why are our roads falling apart? Why are we one of the worst 'first world' countries when it comes to Broadband?
Social Safety net? Never had to rely on it.
Educational system? Don't even get me started. When my parents grew up, kids had to memorize their multiplication tables up to 20 x 20. When I was in school, it was 12 x 12. Now, I think it's 10 x 10... and the kids can use calculators. Teachers spend most the school year 'teaching to test'- making sure the kids can pass the government mandated tests, rather than actually, you know... teaching them. Kids don't learn logic or critical thinking anymore.
Laws? More and more are passed every day... often without the 'lawmakers' even reading them.
Rights? We have fewer and fewer every day.

Yet, despite all this, I don't want to leave.

I'd rather stay, and work to fix the system.


I'm pleased to hear it. Are you under the impression that fixing these things will not require you to not only pay taxes but, if you are as well to do as you imply, a proportion higher than the average citizen? Also, do you think that the problems you have cited will be fixed only by your money? How about your service? Your opinion? Your vote?

If these are the things about which you truly care, have you informed yourself about how the officials that represent you at all levels of government also feel about these things? Have you made certain that all of them know about how YOU feel about such things? Have you proposed solutions which are practical as opposed to ideological?

Are you willing to consider a candidates values, positions, and ideas about the things that YOU care about rather than what your party tells you you should care about?

I'm not judging. I'm asking questions.

To one for whom much has been given, much is expected.
 
2012-07-24 11:12:39 AM  

Prevailing Wind: Are you under the impression that fixing these things will not require you to not only pay taxes but, if you are as well to do as you imply, a proportion higher than the average citizen?


Fixing these things will result in lower taxes. Examples:

Protection? Cops "protect" themselves these days.

Fixing this involves fewer cops, less 'toys' for the cops, and people being allowed to protect themselves. This means less money (taxes) needed to pay for the cops. And less money to pay off the Million dollar lawsuits the cops lose when they step too far over the line.

Governance? I'm not a child- I can govern myself, thanks.

This means smaller government. Which equals lower taxes needed to support it.

Infrastructure? Why are our roads falling apart? Why are we one of the worst 'first world' countries when it comes to Broadband?

This might indeed need more money to fix. But the amount needed is trivial compared to say, military expenditures in the Middle East.

Social Safety net? Never had to rely on it.

Personally, I think it should be done away with altogether. Private charities (and churches- aren't they supposed to help the poor?) can pick up the slack.

Educational system?

Fixing this requires policy changes, not heaps more money. But again, the money they may be required is trivial compared to military expenditures.

Etc.
 
2012-07-24 11:15:16 AM  

Prevailing Wind: To one for whom much has been given, much is expected.


I refer the words of Peter Parker's Uncle Ben: "With great power comes great responsibility".
 
2012-07-24 11:15:49 AM  

JNowe: No, he didn't. The fact that something is beneficial doesn't mean we owe a blank check. You can be for taxes and still think that they are too high or unfairly proportioned.


Damn straight. If the we weren't funding a 'USA World Police' defense budget, then we could lower taxes and still provide a reasonable social safety net.

Unfortunately, a large segment of the population cares more about killing people in other countries that taking care of it's own citizens.
 
2012-07-24 11:26:38 AM  

Jack9: Gleeman: Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: intelligent comment below: tjfly: When he invalidates my argument about spending being too high lket me know. In the mean time, am I going to vote for the guy that just raised my taxes and has accumulated a bigger deficit in 3.5 yrs than Bush did in 8? No.

Record decrease in revenues coupled with massive increase in outlays? HURR DURR

The CBO was making up numbers since the late 80's (Reagan may or may not have authorized this in response to the massive fear generated by the recession and housing bust). The chart shows a surplus in late 90's-early 00's when Clinton declared a surplus based on projections that have never been shown accurate. You're looking at a graph of projected projections. It's hand waving and you're showing it off as fact 30 years later. *facepalm*


Apparently you have difficulty with the words 'actual' and 'projected'. I suggest Webster's.
 
2012-07-24 12:10:21 PM  
So what the dude is saying is that because I was influenced by my family, friends, and role models, that I have no right to the money I earn? If that is not silly enough, the dude thinks that for some mystical reason the government has the right to most if not all my money?

You got to love it when libtards wax philosophic. ROFL
 
2012-07-24 12:38:46 PM  

gstefan: So what the dude is saying is that because I was influenced by my family, friends, and role models, that I have no right to the money I earn? If that is not silly enough, the dude thinks that for some mystical reason the government has the right to most if not all my money?

You got to love it when libtards wax philosophic. ROFL


John Locke: You are entitled to life, liberty, and property.

US Declaration of Independence: You are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

US Constitution: Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

You're the one channeling a philosopher with your assertion that people are entitled to the sum of their earnings. That's not reality. The reality is that governments are entitled to say what you get to keep. This has always been the case.

I guess reality has a liberal bias, again.
 
2012-07-24 12:41:53 PM  

gstefan: So what the dude is saying is that because I was influenced by my family, friends, and role models, that I have no right to the money I earn? If that is not silly enough, the dude thinks that for some mystical reason the government has the right to most if not all my money?

You got to love it when libtards wax philosophic. ROFL


So what you're saying is that you posses the reading skills of a pithed frog? If that is not silly enough, you then come into the thread here and demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension for everyone to see.

You got to love it when conservatards completely miss the point and then biatch about what they imagined the point was. ROFL
 
2012-07-24 12:48:29 PM  
Carlo Spicy-Wiener Smartest
Funniest
2012-07-23 05:32:43 PM


I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, gainfully employed, male citizen of the United States.
I do not know what it's like to be oppressed.
I do not know what it's like to be persecuted.
I do not know what it's like to be in fear for my life.
I do not know what it's like to have to fight for my rights.
I do not know what it's like to struggle for recognition.
I do not know what it's like to go without food or shelter.

THAT is what "white privelage" means.




I guess it means we also got better schooling, huh?
 
2012-07-24 01:03:23 PM  

fredklein: I ask how the rich get "far more", and you reply with a sentence about how the poor actually get more?


No, I reply that you have to be very myopic to not see hwo the rich get more out of the poor being kept happy than the poor do.

fredklein: That makes no sense. The military protects all Americans, rich or poor. They protect rich 100% and poor 100%.

Not if he gets the same policy. He only pays more if he gets a bigger policy.


he has a lot more to protect, he has a bigger policy, get it?

fredklein: So have you- the money you save by having "cheap goods" is money that you can save, making you richer. Oh, and a rich man doesn't just 'become rich' because a highway is nearby- he needs to use that highway, say by moving truckloads of product on it. In which case, he's paying taxes on the trucks, taxes on the gas, taxes on the product... he plays plenty already


I didn't say he just 'becomes rich' because a highway is nearby, but that (and other infrastructure) is important for every rich person in the US.

The rich don't "pay plenty" as they often have lower effective tax rates.

The richer I am the more I have gotten out of the system, which means it is completely "fair" for me to pay more to support the system.
 
2012-07-24 01:21:11 PM  
That Scalzi is a wealthy, successful American who agrees with President Obama on this point, does not make him a hero. It doesn't mean his point is more valid than mine because he caught some breaks and wants to pay more in taxes than he's obligated to pay presently. He has every right to "give back," if he thinks he hasn't already. He could do that now, without a tax increase. He could donate to charitable causes or he could give the money to an inefficient, wasteful bureaucracy that is our federal government. Still, the President's comments ignored the fact that people who have succeeded and did it legally, paid along the way already. At the same time, they likely overcame government interference as often as they used the government services that they paid for.

Taxes are necessary, no doubt about it. The question then becomes what is the appropriate level of taxes and under what circumstances should taxes be changed, if at all. Even if you think more taxes is a good thing, raising taxes during an economic slump will not encourage growth or a reduction in unemployment. If Scalzi's position results in less private sector investment and more unemployment, is he still a "hero"?
 
2012-07-24 01:23:00 PM  

liam76: I didn't say he just 'becomes rich' because a highway is nearby, but that (and other infrastructure) is important for every rich person in the US.

The rich don't "pay plenty" as they often have lower effective tax rates.

The richer I am the more I have gotten out of the system, which means it is completely "fair" for me to pay more to support the system.


My family is "richer" than a lot of poor people but we sell services and work from home. How are we benefiting from the roads more or using/benefiting more from insurance? Also, just because people have money, it does not mean that they necessarily have larger insurance policies. Because my family is all young and healthy we get some of the cheapest health plans. And the only reason our car insurance is slightly more expensive is because we don't have crummy cars, but that expense is built into the system. Low income people often buy flashy muscle cars with expensive insurance rates as well. When we have more at stake we often pay more, but my use of the terribly managed roads is probably much less than the average low wage distance commuter. In fact my family probably uses government services less than most people.

I don't necessarily disagree with your general sentiment. I think that having an unstable economy and homeless/uneducated people on the street is bad for all Americans, probably most of all the affluent. I just think your current argument is flawed. We contribute because it's good for society and having a healthy society/economy is good for us, not because we are actually using government services and programs more.
 
2012-07-24 02:31:28 PM  
TFA is what most people mean when they say they had to work hard and fight for what they have and didn't have the help of anyone. Oh yeah? Did you grow up all alone in the jungle, Mr. Hatchet?
 
2012-07-24 02:38:36 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: TFA is what most people mean when they say they had to work hard and fight for what they have and didn't have the help of anyone. Oh yeah? Did you grow up all alone in the jungle, Mr. Hatchet?



Love your screen name!
 
2012-07-24 02:49:04 PM  

elysive: My family is "richer" than a lot of poor people but we sell services and work from home. How are we benefiting from the roads more or using/benefiting more from insurance?


The insurance was an analogy for the US military protection. Yes they protect all americans equally, but like insurance if you have more to "protect" you should pay more.

The "roads" is a symbol of everything from the power and water grids to education. All of which are required for modern businesses we have in the US.



elysive: I don't necessarily disagree with your general sentiment. I think that having an unstable economy and homeless/uneducated people on the street is bad for all Americans, probably most of all the affluent. I just think your current argument is flawed. We contribute because it's good for society and having a healthy society/economy is good for us, not because we are actually using government services and programs more


I am not saying the rich use them more, I am saying they get more out of them.
 
2012-07-24 02:50:16 PM  
Teufelaffe
HeadLever
lewismarktwo
Vlad_the_Inaner
BeSerious
cynispasm
VulpesVulpes
sendtodave
Serious Post on Serious Thread
DataShade

While my post is more humorous than accurate, you cannot deny that given a choice, many of our welfare recipients would rather stay on the receiving side rather than become a productive contributor.
sure, animals do not know any better. Humans do, that's what makes it all the more of an issue. It's the willingness of so many recipients that are capable of working who choose to stay on the system rather than take responsibility for themselves and their family.
 
2012-07-24 02:56:24 PM  

Villemus Fortis: you cannot deny that given a choice, many of our welfare recipients would rather stay on the receiving side rather than become a productive contributor.


Actually, I can deny that very thing. Tell you what, why don't you come up with some sort of actual evidence* supporting the whole, "many welfare recipients are lazy and stay on welfare because it's easier than working" bullshiat, and I'll give it a listen.

* Anecdotes and anything from Fox News or the partisan blogsphere don't count. Find a source that at least tries to be objective and honest.
 
2012-07-24 02:59:28 PM  

liam76: The richer I am the more I have gotten out of the system, which means it is completely "fair" for me to pay more to support the system.


And I disagree that the rich get more from the [federal] system. However, where they do get more, they do pay more. Richtown has plenty of police, nicely kept parks, and well kept roads. Poortown has few cops, a few weedy lots, and potholes galore. Richtown residents pay more in taxes than Poortown. And that's perfectly fair, because they get what they pay for.

But the federal interstate highway that runs through Richtown and Poortown is the same highway. It leads to the same places, and it has the same potholes. It is equally available to both, and so, the residents of Richtown and Poortown should pay an equal amount to the federal government for that highway.

You argue that the Rich benefit more because their trucks carrying their products for sale at their stores travel on those roads. Btu you neglect the fact that the rich need to pay taxes to buy those trucks, and to pay for the gas those trucks use, so they have already paid more for the increased usage. And you neglect the fact that the poor benefit from the highways as well- the products they buy are transported to the stores they buy from on those roads. Both the rich and poor benefit. So both the rich and poor should pay.

I really don't think you want to get into a Harrison Bergeron world where everyone needs to be exactly "equal".
 
2012-07-24 03:10:11 PM  

liam76: The insurance was an analogy for the US military protection. Yes they protect all americans equally, but like insurance if you have more to "protect" you should pay more.


So, if I have a $10,000 insurance policy, I should pay more than you do for your $10,000 insurance policy, simply because I'm richer than you???
 
2012-07-24 03:14:52 PM  

Teufelaffe: Actually, I can deny that very thing. Tell you what, why don't you come up with some sort of actual evidence* supporting the whole, "many welfare recipients are lazy and stay on welfare because it's easier than working" bullshiat, and I'll give it a listen.


I'd think the very fact there are welfare recipients who stay on welfare instead of working would be evidence enough. If someone wants to work, there are jobs available. They might not be fancy jobs that pay $100/hr, but they are jobs.
 
2012-07-24 03:19:00 PM  

fredklein: But the federal interstate highway that runs through Richtown and Poortown is the same highway. It leads to the same places, and it has the same potholes. It is equally available to both, and so, the residents of Richtown and Poortown should pay an equal amount to the federal government for that highway.


Actually it isn't.

There is a financial barier to using those things making it more accessable to the rich (same with federal courts, adn many other federal institutions, or institutions that get fuinding from the fed).

Also you are confusing "equally availaible to" with "equally benefited from". Who do youthink gets the better benefit, the guy on welfare getting food stamps or the rich guy who doesn't have to worry abotu tthe breakdown of society because poor are being fed?

fredklein: You argue that the Rich benefit more because their trucks carrying their products for sale at their stores travel on those roads. Btu you neglect the fact that the rich need to pay taxes to buy those trucks, and to pay for the gas those trucks use, so they have already paid more for the increased usage. And you neglect the fact that the poor benefit from the highways as well- the products they buy are transported to the stores they buy from on those roads. Both the rich and poor benefit. So both the rich and poor should pay.


Yes they both benefit, but the rich benefit more. I am using the roads as a symbol. Schools, the power grid, etc are all needed for a modern business. A guy who has made it and is rich is benefitting far more from the system than some shmoe barely making it.


fredklein: I really don't think you want to get into a Harrison Bergeron world where everyone needs to be exactly "equal".


I am pretty sure you are the one who brought up "equal".

But the fact of the matter is that peopel who are wealthy get more out of society and should pay more in taxes.
 
2012-07-24 03:29:40 PM  

fredklein: liam76: The insurance was an analogy for the US military protection. Yes they protect all americans equally, but like insurance if you have more to "protect" you should pay more.

So, if I have a $10,000 insurance policy, I should pay more than you do for your $10,000 insurance policy, simply because I'm richer than you???


Jesus you really are thick aren't you?

The military is inusrance. They are protecting everything you own. A rich guy has more to protect than a poor guy, they should pay more for insurance.

No crayons, so if you still don't get it I give up.
 
2012-07-24 03:41:15 PM  

liam76: fredklein: liam76: The insurance was an analogy for the US military protection. Yes they protect all americans equally, but like insurance if you have more to "protect" you should pay more.

So, if I have a $10,000 insurance policy, I should pay more than you do for your $10,000 insurance policy, simply because I'm richer than you???

Jesus you really are thick aren't you?

The military is inusrance. They are protecting everything you own. A rich guy has more to protect than a poor guy, they should pay more for insurance.

No crayons, so if you still don't get it I give up.


Wait, you're telling me that an insurance policy that covers a $100,000 home is going to cost less than an insurance policy that covers a $1,000,000 home? That's crazy talk!
 
2012-07-24 03:55:55 PM  

fredklein: intelligent comment below: Otherwise you pay the tax man based on how much you earn.


When I walk into a grocery store and buy a can of peas, I pay $1.

When a poor person walks into the same grocery store and buys he same can of peas, they pay... $1.

When Bill farking Gates walks into the same grocery store and buys the same can of peas, he pays... $1.

Paying for what you get is fair.


When I pay taxes, I pay $10,000. (Just an example)

When a poor person pays taxes, they end end up paying $10

When Bill Gates pays taxes, he ends up paying $1,000,000.

Yet, we all get the same "services" from the Federal Government. Paying more for the same thing is NOT fair.

Now, differing Local taxes, I can understand. A 'rich' town has to collect more to keep the streets paved in solid gold, while a 'poor' town collects less... and provided less. But at the Federal level, we all get the same things from the government. And thus, we should all pay the same.


Today's discussion for homily:

Mark 12:17 - And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.


Mark 12:41- Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts.
Mark 12:42 - But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
Mark 12:43 - Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.
Mark 12:44 - For they gave a tiny part of their surplus, but she, poor as she is, has given everything she had to live on."
 
2012-07-24 04:26:46 PM  
The government at all levels is a major employer, and we can all see work that can be accomplished by the government with more manpower (infrastructure for instance). We strangle the government at all levels by fighting tax increases on one hand while encouraging with the other hand those who take more than their share of taxpayer money, both through contracted and overbilled business with the government and through government subsidies of industries not in need of help. No part of that makes any sense... government can do the things we want it to do, if we fund it and stop acting like we're entitled to government money - that goes for everyone, especially the wealthy. If we allow the government to hire and do the work needing to be done, unemployment will go down substantially and the cost of business logistics will go down as will private maintenance costs.

To compare the indigent to wild animals is sickening, a disservice to both conscience and intelligence. Wild bears that learn humans are a source of food end up shot when they wander into our towns. The poor receiving assistance are kept from absolute starvation and deprivation; those capable of getting out of poverty generally do and contribute to society in the future, and those who cannot, either from lack of faculties or from other factors, will cost society as much or more if we do not help them. I've known a lot of poor people, and few of them have spoken about feeling entitled to government assistance. I've heard plenty from businessmen about tax breaks, subsidies and the like, and they can't help but sound entitled.

You may complain about someone on welfare owning a cell phone or other luxury good; its unlikely then that you've ever been poor or known anyone who was poor. If you've ever been poor, perhaps you'd remember how any monetary largesse you get, like tax returns, are in essence your only chance to have something nice. Remember also that good decisionmaking is rarely a skill of the poor, and they're subjected to the same marketing pressures as everyone. If you begrudge them the one luxury good they manage to get their hands on, then you're surely against the free market; if we control what the poor are able to spend their money on while on public assistance, how does that coexist with a free market, with our constitutional freedoms? Are we to take it that government assistance should be a form of slavery?

Every complaint about high taxes hinges on public assistance for the poor and in supporting arts and similar organizations. It's interesting then that spending on these programs combined is equivalent to a rounding error in our defense budget. Politics keep you from putting forward any ideas that will actually help save taxpayer money, like rooting out medicare frauds, altering eligibility to big programs like Social Security and Medicare, or reducing defense spending to more sane levels. Instead of inane soundbytes that make it sound like the poor are living on easy street on our dime, why not discuss something with some actual value?
 
2012-07-24 04:30:48 PM  

liam76: fredklein: But the federal interstate highway that runs through Richtown and Poortown is the same highway. It leads to the same places, and it has the same potholes. It is equally available to both, and so, the residents of Richtown and Poortown should pay an equal amount to the federal government for that highway.

Actually it isn't.

There is a financial barier to using those things making it more accessable to the rich


There is no "financial barrier" to using the highways, other than owning a car. And even those who don't own cars still benefit from highways- taxis, buses, trucks that deliver to their local grocery store, and UPS trucks that deliver items they order online, etc all use the highways, too.

Also you are confusing "equally availaible to" with "equally benefited from". Who do youthink gets the better benefit, the guy on welfare getting food stamps or the rich guy who doesn't have to worry abotu tthe breakdown of society because poor are being fed?

You mean, who benefits more- the guy who gets to eat (and therefore live), or the guy who isn't slightly inconvenienced?

Yes they both benefit, but the rich benefit more. I am using the roads as a symbol. Schools, the power grid, etc are all needed for a modern business. A guy who has made it and is rich is benefitting far more from the system than some shmoe barely making it.

And the rich guy is already paying more. A rich man who owns a business pays more in property taxes than a poor person. A rich man who owns a business pays more for electricity than a poor person. And so on. The rich man uses more, so he pays more. That's fair. But in areas that the rich man gets the same, he should pay the same.

But the fact of the matter is that peopel who are wealthy get more out of society and should pay more in taxes.

IF they get more, they should indeed pay more. See my post about Richtown/Poortown.
 
2012-07-24 04:41:55 PM  

liam76: fredklein: liam76: The insurance was an analogy for the US military protection. Yes they protect all americans equally, but like insurance if you have more to "protect" you should pay more.

So, if I have a $10,000 insurance policy, I should pay more than you do for your $10,000 insurance policy, simply because I'm richer than you???

Jesus you really are thick aren't you?

The military is inusrance. They are protecting everything you own. A rich guy has more to protect than a poor guy, they should pay more for insurance.


You are the one who said "Yes they protect all americans equally". Equally. EQUALLY. That's 'the same amount'.

Now you're talking about an UN-equal amount of protection.

Which is it?

If they protect everyone equally, then everyone should pay the same.

if they protect some people more then others, then some people should pay more than others. Of course, this means that some poor people somewhere have been invaded and taken over without it making the news....
 
2012-07-24 04:50:01 PM  

Teufelaffe: Wait, you're telling me that an insurance policy that covers a $100,000 home is going to cost less than an insurance policy that covers a $1,000,000 home? That's crazy talk!


No, it's perfectly logical. But Liam seems to be rather...confused. He says "Yes they protect all americans equally", but then says the rich should pay "more".

Paying more for the same thing. I just don't see how that's fair.
 
2012-07-24 06:06:57 PM  

RehcamretsneF: This subby obviously didnt read the article.

Apart from being on welfare, taxes did nothing for this man. He was handpicked for his talents and abilities all through life, and spent this article thanking people for it. PEOPLE. not TAXES. TIME and value placed upon people without a pricetag, is what got him where he is. IDK what the subby was implying... thinking taxes all of a sudden makes it a "level playing ground" for all the other worthless kids? sorry, quite the opposite. maybe one person in america will be wholly helped by the tax concessions of this man. Everything else is a waste, and makes it worse for everyone else. System is broken. He got lucky.


The point of the article, which ought to be clear to anyone with a 5th-grade reading level, is that NOBODY is successful entirely on his own. Scalzi credits his success partly to his own talent and drive, partly to individuals and institutions that recognized it and gave him a break, but also partly to the many points at which social safety nets, public education, and other taxpayer-funded programs helped him.

Note the points at which the help he received was critical: at the time of his birth, and throughout his childhood through high school. If you think being poor in this country is not a massively crippling affair for future prospects, you're fooling yourself and ignoring decades of data that prove otherwise.

Working poor people spend nearly all, or more than, their entire income on the basics of life. If people got a living wage, then we'd rely far less on social safety net programs. No person employed in this country should need to rely on government handouts purely to survive, and yet that's the reality for millions. Your taxes must make up for the fact that Walmart is buying its labor dirt cheap. But the people who continue to believe that magical wealth will trickle down if we appease the anger of our plutarchian overlords....well, they're the same folks who want to slash safety nets for people while removing any requirement that corporations be good citizens, and preserving a historically low and unsustainable tax rate for the people who already possess more than half the wealth of this country.

You wanna cut waste, stop spending all our tax money giving breaks to billionaires and and big businesses, both of whom have been hoarding cash for the last decade in ever more ridiculous amounts. Stop pretending the magical hand of the free market will fix everything while you slide enormous subsidies to massive conglomerates who hide their record-breaking profits overseas.

I'm a white middle class, 42-year-old with a decent job, a nice (but not extravagant) car, and a decent condo in a pleasant suburb. Most of my neighbors and friedns who grew up in this area went to the best schools in the state, had safe roads and playgrounds to play in, affordable nearby food options, and parents who got home early enough to help with homework.

But I grew up at the top end of "working poor", so I knew plenty of folks on public assistance. For every one person who abused the system, a score were helped. Many more were frustrated by the weird balance of seeking work and finding only things that didn't pay enough to live on or would render their children without healthcare. Somehow we got by. But Dad's work was brutal and now that he's retired it's clear what toll all those hours of overtime took on his body. And yeah, I've earned what I have now, but I'd be an ass if I didn't have a list that looked much like Scalzi's to explain how I got to this point. NEVER take opportunities for granted.

I have a friend who owns a watch that cost enough to buy not just my current car, but my previous one as well. At points in my life, a $20 watch would have been a decision to worry over for weeks, hoping it went on sale for $15. And I've known people for whom $20 would ensure they got critical medication, and they skipped meals to afford it.

And it has taken me years to understand and internalize the fact that dozens of opportunities and assumptions are wrapped up in being the "default/easy mode" character in the video game. What it really took was spending a bit of time in a culture where I could go all day without seeing someone who looked remotely like a white guy, and where in some places shopkeepers would ignore foreigners.