Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

OWS - Finger-Wiggling Their Way To a Better Tomorrow

1697072747587

Posts

  • VanguardVanguard the champion of i-don't-give-a-fuck what tremendously unlikableRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    You're making the assumption that someone with a different ethnic background, but similar socioeconomic background is having the same experience as you. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but to enter into a dialogue with said person from the vantage that they are is going to get you into trouble. You need to let them make that judgement.

    It is entirely possible that a person who is wealthy, but not white, has been the victim of prejudice for their ethnicity. Despite their wealth, they are still dealing with a dimension of society that the rich white person is not.

    Vanguard on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.

    If you can't be financially independent on $140k a year, you have problems far beyond anything I can imagine.

    Most people don't have fixed wants, regardless of income. When you make $700k, you probably don't want to live in a a house you could afford on $150k, for example. If you are happy with the smaller house and cheaper lifestyle, you probably would not take the higher paying (and typically higher hours) job in the first place.

    I'm not going to feel sorry for somebody who has champagne tastes on an champagne budget that isn't expressly stable. If you make $700k a year, live like a $700k a year person, and then get busted down to $300k a year and have to make some "readjustments", I'm willing to bet the $700k those "readjustments" are going to be far less painful than the austerity measures someone like me is going to have to employ when they go from making 21k a year to 13k a year.

    EDIT: And FYI, "wants" are fucking luxuries, not necessities. I "want" a nice car. I "want" a big house. I "want" a new computer with bleeding-edge hardware. I need food. I need clothing. I need shelter. The next time I hear a rich guy whine about how he can't get what he "wants," I'm going to introduce him to my friend currently being crushed under mountains of student loan and medical debt who actually doesn't get all his basic needs met on a day to day basis, like a warm meal and a bed to sleep on.

    I'm not saying you have to feel sorry for him, just that relying on a steady bonus is not crazy. Let's say you were barely paying your bills, and then your boss told you he would give you a quarterly bonus each quarter the company did at least as well as it was projected to. If after 5 years of getting a consistent bonus every quarter your car breaka down an you decided to buy a new car with payments you could not make without the bonus, are you being unreasonable? Strictly speaking, maybe you should realize the bonuses can stop at anytime, but then you should also realize that you can be fired anytime. People make decisions based on past experience and expectations about the future, and I don't think that viewing the bonus as money you expect to have is that different than making decisions on the assumption that you will keep your job.

    To be frank, in the financial sector, getting bonuses and keeping your job may be one and the same, since your job probably is not that safe if your company is stiffing you on your bonus.

    If you use that guy as your example, people will just write it off because the situation is so dire they will assume it must be a fringe case. To make someone understand the issue, I think you need a different example. One thing that always hits home for me is the plight of my chauffeurs. When I get a talkative driver, they often explain how they are responsible for buying their town cars or other luxury cars, and how they have to be replaced every 3 to 4 years because of company policies. These guys work long hours (10-14 hour shifts) get stuck with big expenses, and are tied to the same economic cycle as me (if things are slow, people never stay late and never call them). This all adds up to a perception that despite being hard workers who are motivated and want to move up in the world (a lot of them are immigrants) institutional factors keep them from really making it. Add in the fact that they are of direct relevance to people like me (they are literally how we get home to our families late at night) and the story becomes very relevant an sympathetic. Like the outline for realistic executive compensation reform in the exec comp thread (which I think OWS should literally adopt as a list of demands if they are serious about the issue) you can take this view from the "bad guy" or leave it, but I think that this is the kind of messaging that can work.

    I guess I do know poor people after all.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Space:

    Eye color diversity isn't diversity. Diversity is about bringing new opinions & ideas from various backgrounds whether it's different ethnicities, nationalities, classes, sub-cultures or economic backgrounds which this thread has already discussed at length. The only reason many posters have similar beliefs here is because we are from the poorer spectrum, not just from America either, rather then your usual social circle.

    If you are going to define diversity as diversity of ideas and experiences, then yes, I will agree that diversity has inherent value. My impression is that rope often focus on diversity for diversities sake, which I think is a mistake, but maybe I am wrong and people normally only seek to promote real diversity.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Registered User
    edited March 2012
    Vanguard wrote: »
    He never said that diversity is not inherently valuable,

    Diversity does not have inherent value,

    It looks like he did.


    Taking things entirely out of context (the context being that he's talking about two different meanings of the term 'diversity') is not conducive at all to discourse. Don't do that shit. Whether or not you want to argue over the breakdown of the word itself is one thing, but you're attempting to glide right past that with some stupid selective quoting.

    UnknownSaint on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    You're making the assumption that someone with a different ethnic background, but similar socioeconomic background is having the same experience as you. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but to enter into a dialogue with said person from the vantage that they are is going to get you into trouble. You need to let them make that judgement.

    It is entirely possible that a person who is wealthy, but not white, has been the victim of prejudice for their ethnicity. Despite their wealth, they are still dealing with a dimension of society that the rich white person is not.

    I don't see where I said anything to this effect. I agree 100% that race and ethnicity can have a huge impact on someone's life experience, regardless of their economic status.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Space:

    Eye color diversity isn't diversity. Diversity is about bringing new opinions & ideas from various backgrounds whether it's different ethnicities, nationalities, classes, sub-cultures or economic backgrounds which this thread has already discussed at length. The only reason many posters have similar beliefs here is because we are from the poorer spectrum, not just from America either, rather then your usual social circle.

    If you are going to define diversity as diversity of ideas and experiences, then yes, I will agree that diversity has inherent value. My impression is that rope often focus on diversity for diversities sake, which I think is a mistake, but maybe I am wrong and people normally only seek to promote real diversity.

    Having diversity strictly for diversity isn't bad. The world would get boring really quick if everyone had the same beliefs, ideas or experiences. Diversity is good for understanding things from different perspectives, it's how you learn.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Space:

    Eye color diversity isn't diversity. Diversity is about bringing new opinions & ideas from various backgrounds whether it's different ethnicities, nationalities, classes, sub-cultures or economic backgrounds which this thread has already discussed at length. The only reason many posters have similar beliefs here is because we are from the poorer spectrum, not just from America either, rather then your usual social circle.

    If you are going to define diversity as diversity of ideas and experiences, then yes, I will agree that diversity has inherent value. My impression is that rope often focus on diversity for diversities sake, which I think is a mistake, but maybe I am wrong and people normally only seek to promote real diversity.

    Having diversity strictly for diversity isn't bad. The world would get boring really quick if everyone had the same beliefs, ideas or experiences. Diversity is good for understanding things from different perspectives, it's how you learn.

    I think we are having a definitional argument here. When I say diversity for diversities sake, I am literally saying eye color or height diversity.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • VanguardVanguard the champion of i-don't-give-a-fuck what tremendously unlikableRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    Vanguard wrote: »
    He never said that diversity is not inherently valuable,

    Diversity does not have inherent value,

    It looks like he did.


    Taking things entirely out of context (the context being that he's talking about two different meanings of the term 'diversity') is not conducive at all to discourse. Don't do that shit. Whether or not you want to argue over the breakdown of the word itself is one thing, but you're attempting to glide right past that with some stupid selective quoting.

    One of his definitions of diversity is not at all relevant to this topic. No one would ever talk about the ramifications of being blue-eyed and rich versus brown-eyed and rich. It's a meaningless distinction.

    Now, when bringing in voices from different backgrounds, both socioeconomic and ethnic, we will get a wide range of opinions. This is why I disputed his claim in the first place. People will have different experiences based on their backgrounds, which is why it's inherently valuable to include them. Even if they don't, that's still part of the inherent value; some things transcend these boundaries, others don't. Both need to be included in order for serious robust dialogue to take place.

    Vanguard on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Space:

    Eye color diversity isn't diversity. Diversity is about bringing new opinions & ideas from various backgrounds whether it's different ethnicities, nationalities, classes, sub-cultures or economic backgrounds which this thread has already discussed at length. The only reason many posters have similar beliefs here is because we are from the poorer spectrum, not just from America either, rather then your usual social circle.

    If you are going to define diversity as diversity of ideas and experiences, then yes, I will agree that diversity has inherent value. My impression is that rope often focus on diversity for diversities sake, which I think is a mistake, but maybe I am wrong and people normally only seek to promote real diversity.

    Having diversity strictly for diversity isn't bad. The world would get boring really quick if everyone had the same beliefs, ideas or experiences. Diversity is good for understanding things from different perspectives, it's how you learn.

    I think we are having a definitional argument here. When I say diversity for diversities sake, I am literally saying eye color or height diversity.

    Eye color or height don't enter into diversity.

  • VanguardVanguard the champion of i-don't-give-a-fuck what tremendously unlikableRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    If we're not talking about actual diversity (see: ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, sexual preference, etc.), then I have no idea what the fuck this conversation on "diversity" is about.

    Vanguard on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    @spacekungfuman "I totally know poor people: my chauffeurs!" really isn't helping your case.

  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    If the finance sector had some diversity maybe someone would have said "holy shit guys this isn't AAA and you know it"

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    If the finance sector had some diversity maybe someone would have said "holy shit guys this isn't AAA and you know it"

    You don't need diversity for that, the entire culture needs to change otherwise they'll be ignored, shunned or fired IMO.

  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    The entire culture needs to change to make the rating agencies the big fucking head honchos. The eltie of the elite who no one wants to fuck with.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    tyrannus wrote: »
    The entire culture needs to change to make the rating agencies the big fucking head honchos. The eltie of the elite who no one wants to fuck with.

    Agreed. The IRS & SEC* needs to be vastly improved to handle them, as well.

    * this is their jurisdiction, isn't it?

    Harry Dresden on
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    no, the IRS doesn't really deal with rating securities.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    tyrannus wrote: »
    no, the IRS doesn't really deal with rating securities.

    Agreed. The only involvement the IRS can have is reclassifying a security denominated as debt to be equity or vis versa.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    If we're not talking about actual diversity (see: ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, sexual preference, etc.), then I have no idea what the fuck this conversation on "diversity" is about.

    So I think you agree that choosing to promote diversity on a certain axis solely for the sake of diversity, like eye color does not have value. The value is in promoting different view points and opinions.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • VanguardVanguard the champion of i-don't-give-a-fuck what tremendously unlikableRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    No, I would call you a goose for talking about diversity and then having a discussion about eye color.

    Imagine we're sitting a room talking about the importance of diverse viewpoints. You raise your hand and claim, "Diversity is not inherently valuable." Everybody looks at you cockeyed, a few make counterarguments. You then say, "The color of someone's eyes does not affect their worldview."

    This sounds like a bad pun and everyone wants to ask, "Are you serious?"

    Vanguard on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    @spacekungfuman "I totally know poor people: my chauffeurs!" really isn't helping your case.

    I didn't know there was a case I was trying to win here. I was just providing an example of what I think could be more effective and relatable messaging for conveying the plight of the poor in America to people who do not normally have meaningful interactions with people they know to be poor.

    What point are you trying to make in these posts, exactly? You attacked me for saying that my upbringing did not lead to me knowing poor people, and now you attacked me for saying that despite my upbringing and life circumstances I actually have had meaningful interactions with a certain class of poor people, and because of these interactions I sympathize with them. It is starting to seem like all you are trying to do is attack me, while I am trying to have a good faith, open conversation about a serious topic.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    No, I would call you a goose for talking about diversity and then having a discussion about eye color.

    Imagine we're sitting a room talking about the importance of diverse viewpoints. You raise your hand and claim, "Diversity is not inherently valuable." Everybody looks at you cockeyed, a few make counterarguments. You then say, "The color of someone's eyes does not affect their worldview."

    This sounds like a bad pun and everyone wants to ask, "Are you serious?"

    Please read the post that started this tangent again:
    Vanguard wrote: »
    But you're still meeting people from different backgrounds in that setting. Not everyone who attends college is from a gated community without poor people.

    Diversity does not have inherent value, the value of it comes from having people explain their different views and life experiences. Since no one ever talked about being poor in any social or class setting when I was in college or law school (at a VERY liberal school) I would not say that I got to know poor people in their capacity as poor people even if I knew people who were poor. I think this is a critical distinction.

    Do you still think we ever had a disagreement on this topic? In the first sentence I literally said the value of diversity is having diverse view points.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • VanguardVanguard the champion of i-don't-give-a-fuck what tremendously unlikableRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    My contention was with your claim that there is no inherent value in it. I don't think you can separate the experiences from the background. Which is why there is inherent value.

    When you were challenged on this, you used eye color as an example where diversity made no difference. That is what is silly.

    Vanguard on
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I think what space is saying is that when one seeks to add diversity, it needs to be done in a meaningful way. Probably a better example in context with this thread would be that getting a African-American, Asian-American or Indian-American who was born into the 1% of US isn't going to do squat for diversifying the discussion within financial institutions and government organizations that regulate them, but any who broke into that percent regardless of ethnicity would probably add more diversity, even if they were white.

    This country definitely has some cultural beliefs that are contributing to the problems we are facing. Too many people look at taxes as the "goburmint stealing ma monies," and not as the government collecting revenue to continue providing them with services. There is also too much of a "the world is just" thinking, when the reality is that the world just doesn't give a fuck and very bad things happen to good people, while very good things happen to bad people {Hell, the whole housing bubble pop has shown some good examples of this).

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Space:

    Eye color diversity isn't diversity. Diversity is about bringing new opinions & ideas from various backgrounds whether it's different ethnicities, nationalities, classes, sub-cultures or economic backgrounds which this thread has already discussed at length. The only reason many posters have similar beliefs here is because we are from the poorer spectrum, not just from America either, rather then your usual social circle.

    If you are going to define diversity as diversity of ideas and experiences, then yes, I will agree that diversity has inherent value. My impression is that rope often focus on diversity for diversities sake, which I think is a mistake, but maybe I am wrong and people normally only seek to promote real diversity.

    Having diversity strictly for diversity isn't bad. The world would get boring really quick if everyone had the same beliefs, ideas or experiences. Diversity is good for understanding things from different perspectives, it's how you learn.

    I think we are having a definitional argument here. When I say diversity for diversities sake, I am literally saying eye color or height diversity.

    That's fucking bullshit, man. We were talking about poor people and different perspectives and you said "Diversity isn't inherently valuable." If you were talking about eye color and height then you were literally the only person who thought that, except I guess UnknownSaint. No one but you brought up eye color, we were talking about different levels of wealth and knowing people and you said two things that I was responding to:

    1.) If you knew poor people, them being poor didn't influence their decisions

    (Which is crap, just because someone isn't going on about food stamps doesn't mean being poor isn't affecting their choices. My family was on food stamps all through high school, none of my friends knew about it cause that's not the kind of thing you spread around where I come from but having no money still changed the way I looked about things then and now, all these years later.)

    2.) Diversity has no inherent value, which though the laws of language could only have been referencing the above. If you meant fucking eye color you should have put it in your post. Stop playing the victim, throwing up vague and often ridiculous hypotheticals, and saying things like "you know, lol, my driver was poor so I totes met them."

    You cannot know poverty unless you have been poor. You can learn about it and sympathize with people, read a few articles or reports, listen to people, go on a fact finding mission, whatever. But if you have to know poor people to feel bad for them and try to better our society there are bigger problems going on.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    My contention was with your claim that there is no inherent value in it. I don't think you can separate the experiences from the background. Which is why there is inherent value.

    When you were challenged on this, you used eye color as an example where diversity made no difference. That is what is silly.

    I really think this is just a disagreement over the definition of a word, so discussing it further seems silly. We agree on the substantive point that the value of diversity is in bringing diverse opinions to the conversation.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • MillMill Registered User regular

    You cannot know poverty unless you have been poor. You can learn about it and sympathize with people, read a few articles or reports, listen to people, go on a fact finding mission, whatever. But if you have to know poor people to feel bad for them and try to better our society there are bigger problems going on.

    Going to quote that as well. I'd argue we also have too many people in power who either sit on their hands because they know they can't relate to the issue or royally fuck things up more because they try to pretend to fully understand it. Yes, people can educate themselves on issues, become sympathetic and take action against injustices but often they can't fully understand it because some things just don't translate past experience. Just to use anecdotal evidence, any time I see conservatives whine about discrimination against Christians in America, it really pisses me off because it shows they don't understand the concept (as an individual with a disability, I know full well what it's like to deal with the actually indignity of discrimination).

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Space:

    Eye color diversity isn't diversity. Diversity is about bringing new opinions & ideas from various backgrounds whether it's different ethnicities, nationalities, classes, sub-cultures or economic backgrounds which this thread has already discussed at length. The only reason many posters have similar beliefs here is because we are from the poorer spectrum, not just from America either, rather then your usual social circle.

    If you are going to define diversity as diversity of ideas and experiences, then yes, I will agree that diversity has inherent value. My impression is that rope often focus on diversity for diversities sake, which I think is a mistake, but maybe I am wrong and people normally only seek to promote real diversity.

    Having diversity strictly for diversity isn't bad. The world would get boring really quick if everyone had the same beliefs, ideas or experiences. Diversity is good for understanding things from different perspectives, it's how you learn.

    I think we are having a definitional argument here. When I say diversity for diversities sake, I am literally saying eye color or height diversity.

    That's fucking bullshit, man. We were talking about poor people and different perspectives and you said "Diversity isn't inherently valuable." If you were talking about eye color and height then you were literally the only person who thought that, except I guess UnknownSaint. No one but you brought up eye color, we were talking about different levels of wealth and knowing people and you said two things that I was responding to:

    1.) If you knew poor people, them being poor didn't influence their decisions

    (Which is crap, just because someone isn't going on about food stamps doesn't mean being poor isn't affecting their choices. My family was on food stamps all through high school, none of my friends knew about it cause that's not the kind of thing you spread around where I come from but having no money still changed the way I looked about things then and now, all these years later.)

    2.) Diversity has no inherent value, which though the laws of language could only have been referencing the above. If you meant fucking eye color you should have put it in your post. Stop playing the victim, throwing up vague and often ridiculous hypotheticals, and saying things like "you know, lol, my driver was poor so I totes met them."

    You cannot know poverty unless you have been poor. You can learn about it and sympathize with people, read a few articles or reports, listen to people, go on a fact finding mission, whatever. But if you have to know poor people to feel bad for them and try to better our society there are bigger problems going on.

    I did not say 1. What I said is that if I knew poor people, I was not aware that they were poor because they did not seem to express views in class or in social settings that were informed by being poor. I would have loved to have someone talk about real inequality in my philosophy classes that focused on inequality, but it never happened. I would have loved to have people talk about their experiences with food stamps when we discussed them in my tax policy classes. Never happened.

    When I said diversity has no inherent value, I was referring to the above, but not to say that there isn't value in having diverse participants in a conversation. I was saying that for diversity to have value, it needs to actually lead to varied opinions. So even if there was a poor person in one of my classes, this did not result in valuable diversity unless his income informed his opinions (which it may not have in a class like psychology research methods or latin). If the diversity has no impact, then it might as well just be eye color.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Space:

    Eye color diversity isn't diversity. Diversity is about bringing new opinions & ideas from various backgrounds whether it's different ethnicities, nationalities, classes, sub-cultures or economic backgrounds which this thread has already discussed at length. The only reason many posters have similar beliefs here is because we are from the poorer spectrum, not just from America either, rather then your usual social circle.

    If you are going to define diversity as diversity of ideas and experiences, then yes, I will agree that diversity has inherent value. My impression is that rope often focus on diversity for diversities sake, which I think is a mistake, but maybe I am wrong and people normally only seek to promote real diversity.

    Having diversity strictly for diversity isn't bad. The world would get boring really quick if everyone had the same beliefs, ideas or experiences. Diversity is good for understanding things from different perspectives, it's how you learn.

    I think we are having a definitional argument here. When I say diversity for diversities sake, I am literally saying eye color or height diversity.

    That's fucking bullshit, man. We were talking about poor people and different perspectives and you said "Diversity isn't inherently valuable." If you were talking about eye color and height then you were literally the only person who thought that, except I guess UnknownSaint. No one but you brought up eye color, we were talking about different levels of wealth and knowing people and you said two things that I was responding to:

    1.) If you knew poor people, them being poor didn't influence their decisions

    (Which is crap, just because someone isn't going on about food stamps doesn't mean being poor isn't affecting their choices. My family was on food stamps all through high school, none of my friends knew about it cause that's not the kind of thing you spread around where I come from but having no money still changed the way I looked about things then and now, all these years later.)

    2.) Diversity has no inherent value, which though the laws of language could only have been referencing the above. If you meant fucking eye color you should have put it in your post. Stop playing the victim, throwing up vague and often ridiculous hypotheticals, and saying things like "you know, lol, my driver was poor so I totes met them."

    You cannot know poverty unless you have been poor. You can learn about it and sympathize with people, read a few articles or reports, listen to people, go on a fact finding mission, whatever. But if you have to know poor people to feel bad for them and try to better our society there are bigger problems going on.

    I did not say 1. What I said is that if I knew poor people, I was not aware that they were poor because they did not seem to express views in class or in social settings that were informed by being poor. I would have loved to have someone talk about real inequality in my philosophy classes that focused on inequality, but it never happened. I would have loved to have people talk about their experiences with food stamps when we discussed them in my tax policy classes. Never happened.

    When I said diversity has no inherent value, I was referring to the above, but not to say that there isn't value in having diverse participants in a conversation. I was saying that for diversity to have value, it needs to actually lead to varied opinions. So even if there was a poor person in one of my classes, this did not result in valuable diversity unless his income informed his opinions (which it may not have in a class like psychology research methods or latin). If the diversity has no impact, then it might as well just be eye color.

    Which is fantastic, and would have been great to put in your original post.

    We're also not talking about research methods or latin, we're talking about income disparity and the apparently retarded way bonus are used in corporate America.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Mill wrote: »

    You cannot know poverty unless you have been poor. You can learn about it and sympathize with people, read a few articles or reports, listen to people, go on a fact finding mission, whatever. But if you have to know poor people to feel bad for them and try to better our society there are bigger problems going on.

    Going to quote that as well. I'd argue we also have too many people in power who either sit on their hands because they know they can't relate to the issue or royally fuck things up more because they try to pretend to fully understand it. Yes, people can educate themselves on issues, become sympathetic and take action against injustices but often they can't fully understand it because some things just don't translate past experience. Just to use anecdotal evidence, any time I see conservatives whine about discrimination against Christians in America, it really pisses me off because it shows they don't understand the concept (as an individual with a disability, I know full well what it's like to deal with the actually indignity of discrimination).

    Earlier in this very thread I said something similar. I get very uncomfortable when people at charity events talk about how they understand or identify with the flavor of the month cause. Its fine to say you feel bad and want to help, but its patronizing to claim to understand. Incidentally, that is why I continue to say I don't understand the problems the poor face.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Space:

    Eye color diversity isn't diversity. Diversity is about bringing new opinions & ideas from various backgrounds whether it's different ethnicities, nationalities, classes, sub-cultures or economic backgrounds which this thread has already discussed at length. The only reason many posters have similar beliefs here is because we are from the poorer spectrum, not just from America either, rather then your usual social circle.

    If you are going to define diversity as diversity of ideas and experiences, then yes, I will agree that diversity has inherent value. My impression is that rope often focus on diversity for diversities sake, which I think is a mistake, but maybe I am wrong and people normally only seek to promote real diversity.

    Having diversity strictly for diversity isn't bad. The world would get boring really quick if everyone had the same beliefs, ideas or experiences. Diversity is good for understanding things from different perspectives, it's how you learn.

    I think we are having a definitional argument here. When I say diversity for diversities sake, I am literally saying eye color or height diversity.

    That's fucking bullshit, man. We were talking about poor people and different perspectives and you said "Diversity isn't inherently valuable." If you were talking about eye color and height then you were literally the only person who thought that, except I guess UnknownSaint. No one but you brought up eye color, we were talking about different levels of wealth and knowing people and you said two things that I was responding to:

    1.) If you knew poor people, them being poor didn't influence their decisions

    (Which is crap, just because someone isn't going on about food stamps doesn't mean being poor isn't affecting their choices. My family was on food stamps all through high school, none of my friends knew about it cause that's not the kind of thing you spread around where I come from but having no money still changed the way I looked about things then and now, all these years later.)

    2.) Diversity has no inherent value, which though the laws of language could only have been referencing the above. If you meant fucking eye color you should have put it in your post. Stop playing the victim, throwing up vague and often ridiculous hypotheticals, and saying things like "you know, lol, my driver was poor so I totes met them."

    You cannot know poverty unless you have been poor. You can learn about it and sympathize with people, read a few articles or reports, listen to people, go on a fact finding mission, whatever. But if you have to know poor people to feel bad for them and try to better our society there are bigger problems going on.

    I did not say 1. What I said is that if I knew poor people, I was not aware that they were poor because they did not seem to express views in class or in social settings that were informed by being poor. I would have loved to have someone talk about real inequality in my philosophy classes that focused on inequality, but it never happened. I would have loved to have people talk about their experiences with food stamps when we discussed them in my tax policy classes. Never happened.

    So what? You can still do these things. All you need is to find the proper avenue and subjects to discuss it with. You've already made a good start with this forum.
    When I said diversity has no inherent value, I was referring to the above, but not to say that there isn't value in having diverse participants in a conversation. I was saying that for diversity to have value, it needs to actually lead to varied opinions. So even if there was a poor person in one of my classes, this did not result in valuable diversity unless his income informed his opinions (which it may not have in a class like psychology research methods or latin). If the diversity has no impact, then it might as well just be eye color.

    Did you ask them anything relating to being poor? Had you gotten friendly enough to engage in situations to discuss their views on life that would reveal to you any insights? Maybe they didn't think it mattered or felt it might be perceived to be a weakness among wealthier students.

    That's if there were any poor people there in the first place. I gather you studied at a private college or university? You'd have more opportunities at a public college or university.

    Harry Dresden on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Space:

    Eye color diversity isn't diversity. Diversity is about bringing new opinions & ideas from various backgrounds whether it's different ethnicities, nationalities, classes, sub-cultures or economic backgrounds which this thread has already discussed at length. The only reason many posters have similar beliefs here is because we are from the poorer spectrum, not just from America either, rather then your usual social circle.

    If you are going to define diversity as diversity of ideas and experiences, then yes, I will agree that diversity has inherent value. My impression is that rope often focus on diversity for diversities sake, which I think is a mistake, but maybe I am wrong and people normally only seek to promote real diversity.

    Having diversity strictly for diversity isn't bad. The world would get boring really quick if everyone had the same beliefs, ideas or experiences. Diversity is good for understanding things from different perspectives, it's how you learn.

    I think we are having a definitional argument here. When I say diversity for diversities sake, I am literally saying eye color or height diversity.

    That's fucking bullshit, man. We were talking about poor people and different perspectives and you said "Diversity isn't inherently valuable." If you were talking about eye color and height then you were literally the only person who thought that, except I guess UnknownSaint. No one but you brought up eye color, we were talking about different levels of wealth and knowing people and you said two things that I was responding to:

    1.) If you knew poor people, them being poor didn't influence their decisions

    (Which is crap, just because someone isn't going on about food stamps doesn't mean being poor isn't affecting their choices. My family was on food stamps all through high school, none of my friends knew about it cause that's not the kind of thing you spread around where I come from but having no money still changed the way I looked about things then and now, all these years later.)

    2.) Diversity has no inherent value, which though the laws of language could only have been referencing the above. If you meant fucking eye color you should have put it in your post. Stop playing the victim, throwing up vague and often ridiculous hypotheticals, and saying things like "you know, lol, my driver was poor so I totes met them."

    You cannot know poverty unless you have been poor. You can learn about it and sympathize with people, read a few articles or reports, listen to people, go on a fact finding mission, whatever. But if you have to know poor people to feel bad for them and try to better our society there are bigger problems going on.

    I did not say 1. What I said is that if I knew poor people, I was not aware that they were poor because they did not seem to express views in class or in social settings that were informed by being poor. I would have loved to have someone talk about real inequality in my philosophy classes that focused on inequality, but it never happened. I would have loved to have people talk about their experiences with food stamps when we discussed them in my tax policy classes. Never happened.

    So what? You can still do these things. All you need is to find the proper avenue and subjects to discuss it with. You've already made a good start with this forum.
    When I said diversity has no inherent value, I was referring to the above, but not to say that there isn't value in having diverse participants in a conversation. I was saying that for diversity to have value, it needs to actually lead to varied opinions. So even if there was a poor person in one of my classes, this did not result in valuable diversity unless his income informed his opinions (which it may not have in a class like psychology research methods or latin). If the diversity has no impact, then it might as well just be eye color.

    Did you ask them anything relating to being poor? Had you gotten friendly enough to engage in situations to discuss their views on life that would reveal to you any insights? Maybe they didn't think it mattered or felt it might be perceived to be a weakness among wealthier students.

    That's if there were any poor people there in the first place. I gather you studied at a private college or university? You'd have more opportunities at a public college or university.

    I went to a state school for undergrad (my parents were paying for what my scholarship did not cover, so that seemed like the right thing to do) and a private school for law school. It was not an easy state school to get into, but I am sure there were poor people there, it just never came up. My friends at school happened to mostly be pretty wealthy, but I'm not really sure how that happened. But money was not really something I discussed with people socially. In class there were definitely times when it would have been very relevant for people to share their experiences being poor, but it just never happened. Maybe people were embarrassed? The student body also skewed pretty conservative (it was largely catholic) so maybe that was part of it?

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Space:

    Eye color diversity isn't diversity. Diversity is about bringing new opinions & ideas from various backgrounds whether it's different ethnicities, nationalities, classes, sub-cultures or economic backgrounds which this thread has already discussed at length. The only reason many posters have similar beliefs here is because we are from the poorer spectrum, not just from America either, rather then your usual social circle.

    If you are going to define diversity as diversity of ideas and experiences, then yes, I will agree that diversity has inherent value. My impression is that rope often focus on diversity for diversities sake, which I think is a mistake, but maybe I am wrong and people normally only seek to promote real diversity.

    Having diversity strictly for diversity isn't bad. The world would get boring really quick if everyone had the same beliefs, ideas or experiences. Diversity is good for understanding things from different perspectives, it's how you learn.

    I think we are having a definitional argument here. When I say diversity for diversities sake, I am literally saying eye color or height diversity.

    That's fucking bullshit, man. We were talking about poor people and different perspectives and you said "Diversity isn't inherently valuable." If you were talking about eye color and height then you were literally the only person who thought that, except I guess UnknownSaint. No one but you brought up eye color, we were talking about different levels of wealth and knowing people and you said two things that I was responding to:

    1.) If you knew poor people, them being poor didn't influence their decisions

    (Which is crap, just because someone isn't going on about food stamps doesn't mean being poor isn't affecting their choices. My family was on food stamps all through high school, none of my friends knew about it cause that's not the kind of thing you spread around where I come from but having no money still changed the way I looked about things then and now, all these years later.)

    2.) Diversity has no inherent value, which though the laws of language could only have been referencing the above. If you meant fucking eye color you should have put it in your post. Stop playing the victim, throwing up vague and often ridiculous hypotheticals, and saying things like "you know, lol, my driver was poor so I totes met them."

    You cannot know poverty unless you have been poor. You can learn about it and sympathize with people, read a few articles or reports, listen to people, go on a fact finding mission, whatever. But if you have to know poor people to feel bad for them and try to better our society there are bigger problems going on.

    I did not say 1. What I said is that if I knew poor people, I was not aware that they were poor because they did not seem to express views in class or in social settings that were informed by being poor. I would have loved to have someone talk about real inequality in my philosophy classes that focused on inequality, but it never happened. I would have loved to have people talk about their experiences with food stamps when we discussed them in my tax policy classes. Never happened.

    So what? You can still do these things. All you need is to find the proper avenue and subjects to discuss it with. You've already made a good start with this forum.
    When I said diversity has no inherent value, I was referring to the above, but not to say that there isn't value in having diverse participants in a conversation. I was saying that for diversity to have value, it needs to actually lead to varied opinions. So even if there was a poor person in one of my classes, this did not result in valuable diversity unless his income informed his opinions (which it may not have in a class like psychology research methods or latin). If the diversity has no impact, then it might as well just be eye color.

    Did you ask them anything relating to being poor? Had you gotten friendly enough to engage in situations to discuss their views on life that would reveal to you any insights? Maybe they didn't think it mattered or felt it might be perceived to be a weakness among wealthier students.

    That's if there were any poor people there in the first place. I gather you studied at a private college or university? You'd have more opportunities at a public college or university.

    I went to a state school for undergrad (my parents were paying for what my scholarship did not cover, so that seemed like the right thing to do) and a private school for law school. It was not an easy state school to get into, but I am sure there were poor people there, it just never came up. My friends at school happened to mostly be pretty wealthy, but I'm not really sure how that happened. But money was not really something I discussed with people socially. In class there were definitely times when it would have been very relevant for people to share their experiences being poor, but it just never happened. Maybe people were embarrassed? The student body also skewed pretty conservative (it was largely catholic) so maybe that was part of it?

    Can't fault you for having wealthy friends in state school, though that may have limited your social circle. People tend to gravitate toward people similar to them, so that's normal. While it's true money doesn't need to be discussed socially (from what I gather this is increased among the wealthy) but you don't need to bring up money to know whether a person is poor or not. Just noticing how their dress, accents, equipment & resources can be enough. It's easier once you become close friends, too. This can allow you to see what their lives are like and what they have to deal with, which can reveal how people from poor classes act. From what I've heard about wealthy conservative cultures they're far more strict, especially about money, than liberal cultures. That makes it easier to become isolated. You're doing well by finding others who are different from you here, though. Sure we may not be face to face but forums are a good place to discover new people you otherwise wouldn't cross paths with.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    But how can he side with people he doesn't know or understand?

    Let's call it an investment in a securities bond, perhaps. :P

    BTW, has SKFM ever said what kind of lawyer he is? I'm just curious, because while I don't understand how a lawyer can come across as so ... argh, I am trying to think of something nice to say, he does at times seem to be willing to admit the value of a good debate and change his opinion, its just so many of his opinions highlight gross inequalities.

    It just reminds me my young cousin who is a US citizen who is ridiculously intelligent, like genius level, who comes from a relatively poor rural family/community wants to grow up to be an investment banker / manager this last family get together at Christmas. I mean, I swear this kid could come up with a way to find a cure for cancer or build a moon base and he wants to be the ultra-rich - I didn't have the heart to tell him how much the deck was stacked against him even if he did manage to become new money and it dismayed me because it feels like our future generations ambitions are torn between being good people and living as the working poor sub class of society. :(

    This is a little off topic, but our society absolutely rewards the wrong things. I was valedictorian of my college, and work with brilliant people who come from useful backgrounds like hard science degrees (I actually have former ivy league professors at my firm), and we spend our time figuring out how to make rich people richer, how to minimize taxes or how to keep patents as long as possible. At least now that I practice employee benefits and executive compensation, I do "good" by helping protect pension plans from huge penalties if they are not operated correctly. When I was a tax attorney, I literally did nothing but help companies pay less in taxes.

    I don't want to lose the quoted point. Is one of OWS's messages that we need to flip the way we prioritize careers by paying more for fields that are actually useful to society? Because that seems like something that would do a lot of good for everyone.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    I love how we're using "public university" as a metric for finding poor people.

    How about...barely a high school diploma.

    sig.jpg
  • CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Vanguard wrote: »
    But how can he side with people he doesn't know or understand?

    Let's call it an investment in a securities bond, perhaps. :P

    BTW, has SKFM ever said what kind of lawyer he is? I'm just curious, because while I don't understand how a lawyer can come across as so ... argh, I am trying to think of something nice to say, he does at times seem to be willing to admit the value of a good debate and change his opinion, its just so many of his opinions highlight gross inequalities.

    It just reminds me my young cousin who is a US citizen who is ridiculously intelligent, like genius level, who comes from a relatively poor rural family/community wants to grow up to be an investment banker / manager this last family get together at Christmas. I mean, I swear this kid could come up with a way to find a cure for cancer or build a moon base and he wants to be the ultra-rich - I didn't have the heart to tell him how much the deck was stacked against him even if he did manage to become new money and it dismayed me because it feels like our future generations ambitions are torn between being good people and living as the working poor sub class of society. :(

    This is a little off topic, but our society absolutely rewards the wrong things. I was valedictorian of my college, and work with brilliant people who come from useful backgrounds like hard science degrees (I actually have former ivy league professors at my firm), and we spend our time figuring out how to make rich people richer, how to minimize taxes or how to keep patents as long as possible. At least now that I practice employee benefits and executive compensation, I do "good" by helping protect pension plans from huge penalties if they are not operated correctly. When I was a tax attorney, I literally did nothing but help companies pay less in taxes.

    I don't want to lose the quoted point. Is one of OWS's messages that we need to flip the way we prioritize careers by paying more for fields that are actually useful to society? Because that seems like something that would do a lot of good for everyone.

    You're going to have to elaborate what "useful" is in your logic, because it sounds like it's going to go down another "only STEM degree students are doing something useful," tangent. Are you in favor of having teachers' pay increase across the board? What about adjunct faculty at universities who are increasingly becoming the norm in favor of traditional tenured professors, yet they get paid dick for each class they teach and don't receive any benefits. Meanwhile vice president of flying around on jets (on the school's dime) and schmoozing with moneyed people takes home over a hundred thousand plus.

    To elaborate on my point: this isn't to say that STEM funding isn't woefully inadequate for people who want to do something other than work for the pfizers or military contracts of the world. Part of the research I have been doing for my work this year however has included reading a metlife survey on the state of education and how teachers are utilized. The Fortune 1000 executives surveyed almost unanimously wanted schools teaching more critical thinking/transferable skills to students over making sure students are crammed with as much advanced math and science as possible (unless students are specifically interested in that). I.e. skills that are applicable to careers beyond what may fall under the STEM spectrum.

    CptKemzik on
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    I love how we're using "public university" as a metric for finding poor people.

    How about...barely a high school diploma.

    I'll up the ante, GED and lower.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    I love how we're using "public university" as a metric for finding poor people.

    How about...barely a high school diploma.

    I'll up the ante, GED and lower.

    99% of American babies have an income of zero dollars a year. Who's the real poor people?

    The actually reason that public university keeps getting brought up is because some people seem to think they've never encountered the poor because some people like to rely only on first hand and anecdotal evidence to make decisions about public policy (have you ever watched Congress, that's all they fucking talk about, you get good solid numbers and research like maybe once a day.)

    Lh96QHG.png
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    There's a real difference between children and a 20 year old with a GED, or a 20 year old without one.

    Not sure what you're really going after with that statement.

  • CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    I'm gonna say "sarcasm."
    The actually reason that public university keeps getting brought up is because some people seem to think they've never encountered the poor because some people like to rely only on first hand and anecdotal evidence to make decisions about public policy (have you ever watched Congress, that's all they fucking talk about, you get good solid numbers and research like maybe once a day.)

    This reminds me of that recent case with the doughboy virginia legislator who thought he was hee-lar-ious bitching in state congress about how those damn liburls were preventing him from getting any with his wife. It couldn't be because you voted in favor of something that forces women to have a probe stuffed in their vagina for an abortive procedure, no it had to be the angry guy on TV who didn't know what he was talking about because ...heh women am I right?

    CptKemzik on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Not sarcasm, but a short laugh. I really want to move on from this whole "I don't know poor people" thing and go back to talking about the economy and how income disparity is destroying us.

    Is this a place to talk about the job market in general? Because I'd like to talk about how we keep gutting the public sector at every level and how that's probably not helping this whole "booming job creation, stagnant unemployment level" thing. I feel like OWS should be anti-austerity.

    Let's look at Europe and at the state level in the US and see how well austerity works.

    Lh96QHG.png
Sign In or Register to comment.