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 198
    More: Hero, Air Force Base, Mr. Johnson, Fresno Bee, Glendora  
•       •       •

42299 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-23 05:17:08 PM
9 votes:

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 03:48:17 PM
9 votes:
So you guys DNRTFA and assumed it to be the exact opposite of what it is? Yeah, sounds about right.
2012-07-23 04:43:51 PM
7 votes:

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 04:07:32 PM
7 votes:
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 05:43:29 PM
6 votes:

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 05:32:43 PM
6 votes:
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 05:31:01 PM
6 votes:
To paraphrase Louis CK, if you can't admit that being a white man is awesome you are an asshole.
2012-07-23 03:11:04 PM
6 votes:
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 05:25:57 PM
5 votes:

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 05:14:25 PM
5 votes:
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 05:12:48 PM
5 votes:

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 05:12:42 PM
5 votes:
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 04:53:43 PM
5 votes:
The confusion people have with this headline and TFA is weird.
2012-07-23 09:52:11 PM
4 votes:

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 08:26:45 PM
4 votes:

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 06:13:33 PM
4 votes:

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 05:59:25 PM
4 votes:
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 05:44:55 PM
4 votes:

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.
QDW
2012-07-23 05:15:08 PM
4 votes:

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 05:14:57 PM
4 votes:

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?
2012-07-23 04:49:20 PM
4 votes:

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 10:13:27 PM
3 votes:

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 10:11:12 PM
3 votes:

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 09:54:57 PM
3 votes:

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 08:04:12 PM
3 votes:
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 07:43:30 PM
3 votes:

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 06:42:35 PM
3 votes:

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 06:13:02 PM
3 votes:
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 06:08:12 PM
3 votes:

roxtar10870: Taxes = theft

The price you pay for living in a civilized society.

FTFY.
2012-07-23 05:56:22 PM
3 votes:

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 05:49:54 PM
3 votes:

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 05:42:12 PM
3 votes:

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 05:37:14 PM
3 votes:

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 05:33:25 PM
3 votes:

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 05:29:32 PM
3 votes:

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 05:28:05 PM
3 votes:

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 05:24:32 PM
3 votes:

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 05:22:26 PM
3 votes:

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 05:16:00 PM
3 votes:
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 05:10:20 PM
3 votes:

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?
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-23 04:14:29 PM
3 votes:
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 04:04:09 PM
3 votes:
WTF is going on in this thread?
2012-07-23 04:03:37 PM
3 votes:

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 03:49:25 PM
3 votes:
Reader, I married her

I don't know who this guy is, but I just fell in love with him.
2012-07-23 03:17:27 PM
3 votes:
I love when teabaggers think restating the same herp-a-derp a bit more forcefully is "proving liberals wrong.'
2012-07-24 04:30:48 PM
2 votes:

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 04:26:46 PM
2 votes:
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 10:19:43 AM
2 votes:

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.
2012-07-23 11:18:29 PM
2 votes:

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 09:42:52 PM
2 votes:

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 09:40:28 PM
2 votes:

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 09:26:52 PM
2 votes:

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 09:09:07 PM
2 votes:

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 08:43:55 PM
2 votes:

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 08:32:06 PM
2 votes:

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 08:11:59 PM
2 votes:

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 08:05:50 PM
2 votes:

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 07:58:07 PM
2 votes:

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 07:18:39 PM
2 votes:

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 07:06:11 PM
2 votes:

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 07:00:22 PM
2 votes:

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 06:53:06 PM
2 votes:

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 06:51:27 PM
2 votes:

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 06:23:39 PM
2 votes:
Wow, a lot of people didn't really read the article (shocking, I know). Also, quite a few dumbasses in here.
2012-07-23 06:21:41 PM
2 votes:

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 06:17:46 PM
2 votes:

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 05:50:51 PM
2 votes:

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 05:50:32 PM
2 votes:

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 05:47:41 PM
2 votes:

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 05:38:32 PM
2 votes:

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 05:35:06 PM
2 votes:
images.sodahead.com
2012-07-23 05:26:58 PM
2 votes:

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 05:26:15 PM
2 votes:
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 05:24:52 PM
2 votes:

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 05:22:58 PM
2 votes:

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 05:17:34 PM
2 votes:

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 05:13:14 PM
2 votes:
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 05:10:28 PM
2 votes:

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 05:00:17 PM
2 votes:

skinnycatullus: WTF is going on in this thread?


total farkers happened to it
2012-07-23 04:18:15 PM
2 votes:

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
2012-07-23 03:49:55 PM
2 votes:

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?
2012-07-24 06:56:38 PM
1 votes:

jvowles: Watch how quickly 9-1-1 shows up when you make call in rich neighborhoods versus poor ones. 25 minutes for an ambulance to get there from 15 blocks away. Fifteen blocks in a different direction and you get your choice of two within five minutes, because they know you can afford it.



I knew someone who lived in Beverly Hills

Police response time?

2 minutes or less
2012-07-24 06:55:09 PM
1 votes:

Nil Tu Aris: raising taxes during an economic slump will not encourage growth or a reduction in unemployment.



Except that's exactly what it does

More government revenues means more jobs for the public and private sector. Like it or not, government spending creates jobs.

Rich people stashing money away watching a balance grow does not create jobs.
2012-07-24 06:33:36 PM
1 votes:

liam76: 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.


I would actually disagree with this statement. If I'm really poor and someone steals my wallet from me, I may go without food. If I'm rich and someone steals my wallet from me, I may be inconvenienced. It would suck for a mega rich person to lose a billion dollar home due to looting or something. The monetary losses may be vast, but it's not as sucky as losing one's life fighting over pennies on the street.
2012-07-24 06:12:57 PM
1 votes:

Undulation: 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 ...


Marry me.
2012-07-24 06:06:57 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-24 04:50:01 PM
1 votes:

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 04:41:55 PM
1 votes:

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 03:14:52 PM
1 votes:

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 03:10:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:59:28 PM
1 votes:

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 01:23:00 PM
1 votes:

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 12:10:21 PM
1 votes:
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 11:12:39 AM
1 votes:

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 10:51:23 AM
1 votes:

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 10:40:51 AM
1 votes:

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 10:22:13 AM
1 votes:

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 10:15:35 AM
1 votes:

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 09:28:15 AM
1 votes:

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 08:05:13 AM
1 votes:

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.
US1
2012-07-24 07:02:43 AM
1 votes:

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 06:48:04 AM
1 votes:

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
2012-07-24 01:20:36 AM
1 votes:

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 12:29:59 AM
1 votes:

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 12:22:22 AM
1 votes:

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
2012-07-23 11:32:56 PM
1 votes:
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 11:04:41 PM
1 votes:

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 11:04:07 PM
1 votes:

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 10:52:16 PM
1 votes:
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 10:27:53 PM
1 votes:

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 10:23:40 PM
1 votes:

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 09:58:21 PM
1 votes:
rosariomariocapalbo.files.wordpress.com

Some of us are more equal than others.
2012-07-23 09:55:32 PM
1 votes:
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 09:53:26 PM
1 votes:

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 09:50:31 PM
1 votes:

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 09:35:22 PM
1 votes:

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 09:29:57 PM
1 votes:

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 09:14:36 PM
1 votes:

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 09:13:59 PM
1 votes:

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 09:10:01 PM
1 votes:
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 08:57:35 PM
1 votes:

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 08:42:37 PM
1 votes:

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 08:42:04 PM
1 votes:

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 08:30:34 PM
1 votes:

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 08:18:45 PM
1 votes:

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 08:15:32 PM
1 votes:
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 08:12:18 PM
1 votes:

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 07:55:33 PM
1 votes:
That was excellent.
2012-07-23 07:41:22 PM
1 votes:

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 07:40:26 PM
1 votes:

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 07:34:18 PM
1 votes:
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 07:25:51 PM
1 votes:

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 07:25:50 PM
1 votes:

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 07:22:17 PM
1 votes:
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 07:06:31 PM
1 votes:

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 07:06:23 PM
1 votes:
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 07:05:13 PM
1 votes:

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 07:04:25 PM
1 votes:
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 07:02:18 PM
1 votes:

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 07:01:54 PM
1 votes:

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 07:01:27 PM
1 votes:
That guy is a real human being.

Awesome
2012-07-23 06:43:32 PM
1 votes:

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 06:43:22 PM
1 votes:

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 06:42:01 PM
1 votes:

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 06:41:02 PM
1 votes:

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 06:39:12 PM
1 votes:

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 06:38:21 PM
1 votes:
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 06:33:04 PM
1 votes:

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 06:29:16 PM
1 votes:

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 06:27:00 PM
1 votes:
An attitude of gratitude.

More people need to have it.
2012-07-23 06:25:13 PM
1 votes:

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 06:21:42 PM
1 votes:

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 06:20:19 PM
1 votes:

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 06:17:57 PM
1 votes:

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 06:14:29 PM
1 votes:

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 06:08:28 PM
1 votes:

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 06:08:10 PM
1 votes:

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 06:02:31 PM
1 votes:

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 05:57:46 PM
1 votes:

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 05:53:57 PM
1 votes:

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 05:48:12 PM
1 votes:

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 05:47:54 PM
1 votes:

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


Have they considered not breaking the law?
2012-07-23 05:47:13 PM
1 votes:

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 05:47:12 PM
1 votes:

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 05:46:33 PM
1 votes:

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 05:45:05 PM
1 votes:
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 05:44:44 PM
1 votes:

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 05:41:56 PM
1 votes:
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 05:39:53 PM
1 votes:

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 05:39:51 PM
1 votes:

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 05:39:06 PM
1 votes:

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 05:39:02 PM
1 votes:

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 05:36:29 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-07-23 05:34:40 PM
1 votes:

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 05:33:58 PM
1 votes:

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 05:33:48 PM
1 votes:

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 05:31:13 PM
1 votes:

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 05:30:18 PM
1 votes:

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 05:29:11 PM
1 votes:

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 05:22:13 PM
1 votes:

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 05:19:04 PM
1 votes:

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 05:18:55 PM
1 votes:

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 05:18:33 PM
1 votes:

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 05:18:33 PM
1 votes:

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 05:17:27 PM
1 votes:
Taxes = theft... What good Might be done with the stolen money doesn't make it moral.
This guy is an idiot.
2012-07-23 05:17:16 PM
1 votes:

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 05:15:10 PM
1 votes:
"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 05:13:14 PM
1 votes:
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 05:11:53 PM
1 votes:

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 05:07:51 PM
1 votes:
"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 05:06:18 PM
1 votes:
Got no reason, what the heck!
Pay my taxes, pay my taxes;
PAYG my taxes.
2012-07-23 05:04:40 PM
1 votes:

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 05:02:44 PM
1 votes:
My taxes ARE to high. The problem is yours are too low.
2012-07-23 05:00:00 PM
1 votes:
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 04:58:30 PM
1 votes:
How about the rent? Is that OK?
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-23 04:30:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:10:29 PM
1 votes:
No dice, subby. Ever since Scalzi came out as a condescending, racist bigot, I have no interest in him, his opinions, or his fiction.
2012-07-23 03:52:27 PM
1 votes:

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


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
Displayed 198 of 198 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report