trparkyI am in no way discounting those issues, I feel for those people who lived through that. Hell, some of the poorest people in the United States practically live like kings according to some other countries. That's not to say the the US doesn't have issues.

Look at how much CEOs are paid when compared to that of the people on the bottom. Look no further than Amazon, the CEO is one of the richest people in the world yet the people on the bottom who actually are the lifeblood of the company and that without them the company would not run are paid shit. We're talking the people who answer the phones, resolve customer complaints and get swore at on a daily basis, pack boxes, etc. These are the people that if they didn't exist the company wouldn't function, the lifeblood of the company. Yet those people are paid shit when compared to that of the CEO. You can't sit there and tell me that something isn't messed up here.

trparkyLook at how much CEOs are paid when compared to that of the people on the bottom.

Ferrum MasterBecause of that problems like these look alien to us.

$ReaPeR$I think this says a lot about human stupidity. so, it's better to be inclusive than giving the job to someone that is the best at it. the cancer is real. :)

StrayKATYou only ever had one defense: The Constitution. When even that no longer provides a proper check to power, then nothing will. What are you going to do? Advocate for new rules.. that the Constitution already gave.. and they didn't care about in the first place

R-T-BI'm not sure that's true. They simply rewrote the rules to fit their situation, meaning the rules in the first place weren't strong enough.

droopyROI only know rumours, but if they are half true, my CEO is earning in a month about what i make in 3-4 years , i imagine it is the same allover the civilized world and even more so in third world countries

ValantarCan you please explain how demanding equal treatment and respect compared to one's peers (and demanding systems with inherent bias to be reconfigured to remove this) is somehow forcing you to fall in step with their political beliefs? Isn't constructing and maintaining a biased system - such as one that gives straight white men preferential treatment (which there exists more than sufficient data to say exists in a plethora of fields) - also then forcing your political beliefs on others? Or are you claiming that our current social reality is somehow apolitical or politically neutral?


Ah, the classic "poverty is the fault of the poor people" argument. It's so convenient, as it entirely absolves everyone else of any responsibility to make society a better place. It's just too bad that there are overwhelming amounts of evidence to this being entirely untrue.

trparkyYeah, and something's very much wrong with that. And you wonder why the younger people are so pissed off. They've been dealt a very bad hand in life.

SteevoIn the US if you are born poor, but make good decisions with money and work you will be out of poverty by the time you are 25.

If all people used to be poor, how did some of them become rich? The lottery? They saved it, or made good business choices... Nah... Everyone got together and gave them all their money...


What are the statistics for people who win millions in the lottery, how about pro athletes, how long do they keep their millions?

Some people are poor as they are stupid, and giving them more money doesn't fix their stupidity, it just makes the people who will sell them something they want richer when they buy stupid shit.

I'm sitting in a truck not a few hundred feet from some drunk native Americans who get money for nothing (Per Cap) , and spend it on getting drunk, cars they treat like shit, or other stupid things.

ValantarSomehow that doesn't strike me as fair, no.

R-T-BIf you define that as "cancer" sure. I for one value inclusion above merit but that does not mean they are mutually exclusive. All that poll shows is how divided we are, to be frank, not that either side is "right" or "cancerous."



That's a problem with the governments implementation, not the idea itself. Ideally, you'd answer this at the voting booth. Barring that, there are other means, but none of them are pretty.

ValantarAll people have the same opportunity and ability to rise above their circumstances, regardless of what those circumstances are. Sure, keep dreaming. That is one of the most glaring logical fallacies of conservative/libertarian ideology.

ValantarThe thing is, poverty creates an environment where good long-term decision-making is a near impossibility, as the stress of short-term survival is so great as to render long-term planning near impossible.

$ReaPeR$technology will be the no 1 job killer and sjw's solution is id politics. yeah.. our generation is retarded. the far left morons are blaming everything on white cis males and the far right morons think that nationalism is the solution in a totally global economy... both base their reality on feelings and pointless oversimplifications because their stupid little head would explode if they could grasp the complexity of relations and factors in the global level. we are still trapped in the tribalistic way of thinking because we as a species have never been so many while having such a tremendous amount of knowledge available so our instinct is to run into the closet and hide. that's what we are watching, scared little children that haven't got the slightest clue on how to deal with reality.

$ReaPeR$the pol was about which one people "prioritized", it never said they are mutually exclusive and neither did i. that is the cancer, when one prioritizes what is essentially id politics over objective facts. and yes i do understand your pov but i also understand what happens when one prioritizes id politics over facts and the consequences of the second are much worse. merit does not give 2 fucks about skin color, gender or whatever else. merit is actually the most inclusive and objective way of dealing with people.

ValantarI suppose in a perfect world you might have a point, but the part I emphasized in your quote shows where your understanding of society falters. "Merit" is not a concept that exists outside of social reality, and as such it is defined (and policed) within the norms and hierarchies of that society.

StrayKATNationalism is a solution to address one problem: The Reagan-Thatcher era (and Neo-Liberals everywhere) smashed a lot of unions and local industry (for the sake of globalism) and shifted their economies to focus on service. Nationalism brings some of that manufacuring and production back home (or at least, retains some of the things that were danger). Not all.. but some.

Regulating banks again would also help. Funnily, I'll bring up that media weaponization I mentioned earlier. Hillary Clinton was apparently the hero of the Left, but she was never going to do this. Bill Clinton himself is the one who destroyed Glass-Steagall and made the banks what they are today. He and Tony Blair both did things that Reagan and Thatcher only dreamed about. No one talks about this enough, but Trump actually wants Glass-Steagall back.. no different than Bernie or Elizabeth Warren (but they go a step further and want socialism... then stutter when you challenge where all of that money is going to come from). I really wish they all could work together, but it seems pretty much forbidden to even work with Trump. He's an evil guy who must be impeached and all that. edit: I mean, I don't understand how they don't at least "use" him. How could you hate someone so much to not even work towards some goal beneficial to your side... or rather Americans' side? I personally think there's bigger powers here that drive that wedge between them and stoke the fire. And people fall right into the trap and play their assigned roles.




edit: Vulkan now using a CoC. My conspiracy about MS is seeming more true. :D

• Hillary is mainly a women's icon, which is highly deserved for reaching positions no women have before.
• Hillary has been thoroughly and soundly criticized for her neoliberalist leanings, ties to the financial industry, and soft stance on regulation of banks.
• Hillary has still been subjected to treatment no male politician in her position has been subjected to, and most of it highly gendered ("doesn't have the temperament for government" and all that)
• The stuff you mention about Bill Clinton in the 90s (and Hillary's continuation of this) is a large part of why a lot of left-leaning Americans are now offended if you call them "liberals", as that invokes the neoliberalist policies of deregulation and union-busting of this era.
• Trump is an authoritarian, racist, quasi-fascist, anti-scientific, unpredictable narcissist who systematically lies outright to the public and governs seemingly by whim rather than informed decisions. Having a few sensible policies doesn't change that - especially when they stand to serve him and his businesses.
• It's no secret that raising taxes is a necessity for implementing the policies suggested by Sanders and Warren. Bringing taxes back to the levels of, say, the Reagan era would be a good start. Or perhaps where they were under Nixon? Historically, we can tell that higher tax levels make for a more stable and well-functioning society and government. In particular, raising taxes on the wealthy will make up for a lot of this. And it won't hurt anyone, seeing how trickle-down economics is a complete and utter lie, disproven time and again.

ValantarI suppose in a perfect world you might have a point, but the part I emphasized in your quote shows where your understanding of society falters. "Merit" is not a concept that exists outside of social reality, and as such it is defined (and policed) within the norms and hierarchies of that society. What constitutes merit is defined by the field or culture that the merit is supposed to exist in. The concept of merit is as such not at all impervious to bias. There have been plenty of real-world studies that have unequivocally showed how women, people of color, non-heterosexuals and other minorities are systematically judged more harshly than their straight, white, male peers for equivalent (or even identical!) work. This is fact. It's not universal, but it's systemic - meaning that on average, it exists everywhere in our societies. Similarly, though somewhat more subtly, people's personalities are also judged unequally - aggressive, assertive women being seen as "bossy" or "bitchy" while men who act I'm exactly the same manner are rewarded for being "hungry" and "ambitious" is the most classic, obvious example. This has real-world consequences, where women like this are passed over for promotions or not given new assignments as their seen as "not management material" while men who act the exact same way have the career red carpet rolled out for them. As such, "merit" is quite often dependent on who you are, not what you do, and investigating and adjusting exactly how "merit" is judged is an essential function of any meritocracy.

ValantarI'm about to go to bed, so I'll try to keep this short:

• Hillary is mainly a women's icon, which is highly deserved for reaching positions no women have before.
• Hillary has been thoroughly and soundly criticized for her neoliberalist leanings, ties to the financial industry, and soft stance on regulation of banks.
• Hillary has still been subjected to treatment no male politician in her position has been subjected to, and most of it highly gendered ("doesn't have the temperament for government" and all that)
• The stuff you mention about Bill Clinton in the 90s (and Hillary's continuation of this) is a large part of why a lot of left-leaning Americans are now offended if you call them "liberals", as that invokes the neoliberalist policies of deregulation and union-busting of this era.
• Trump is an authoritarian, racist, quasi-fascist, anti-scientific, unpredictable narcissist who systematically lies outright to the public and governs seemingly by whom rather than informed decisions. Having a few sensible policies doesn't change that - especially when they stand to serve him and his businesses.
• It's no secret that raising taxes is a necessity for implementing the policies suggested by Sanders and Warren. Bringing taxes back to the levels of, say, the Reagan era would be a good start. Or perhaps where they were under Nixon? Historically, we can tell that higher tax levels make for a more stable and well-functioning society and government. In particular, raising taxes on the wealthy will make up for a lot of this. And it won't hurt anyone, seeing how trickle-down economics is a complete and utter lie, disproven time and again.

ValantarHillary has still been subjected to treatment no male politician in her position has been subjected to, and most of it highly gendered ("doesn't have the temperament for government" and all that)

ValantarAnd it won't hurt anyone, seeing how trickle-down economics is a complete and utter lie, disproven time and again.

StrayKATI still don't understand why he's seen as racist.. let alone a fascist.

ValantarWe young people today (anyone below 35-40, really) are the first generation (and a half?) in quite a while to have a worse outlook than their parents in terms of job availability, job stability, prospects of income, legal protections from abusive employers, and so on and so forth. Unions in the US are nearly dead, and Europe is still moving in the same direction. Fiscal and tax policy in pretty much all Western countries has moved in this direction since the sixties, but it's only recently reached critical mass, since economic growth has started to approach its inevitable ceiling. So: we have lower taxes (albeit with quite a few caveats attached) but the biggest difference by far is for high income groups and those with a lot of capital (not income), and in return we make less money, are forced to lead insecure lives where we're at the mercy of our employers, and have to pay out of pocket for an ever-increasing amount of what ought to be public services. Somehow that doesn't strike me as fair, no.


Ah, yes. All people have the same opportunity and ability to rise above their circumstances, regardless of what those circumstances are. Sure, keep dreaming. That is one of the most glaring logical fallacies of conservative/libertarian ideology. The thing is, poverty creates an environment where good long-term decision-making is a near impossibility, as the stress of short-term survival is so great as to render long-term planning near impossible. There are always exceptions, but that is exactly what they are - exceptions. If you have to struggle to feed yourself and your family, if you're working two or three jobs just to make ends meet - which is the reality for a lot of the working poor in the US - you don't have the luxury of taking a step back to plan ahead. This is what your argument entirely fails to address. The conditions for "mak[ing] good decisions with money and work[ing]" are simply not present, and as such expecting that is entirely unreasonable.

The same goes for people growing up in a society with deeply ingrained trauma, such as Native Americans. You're lambasting them for not making rational choices when they're dealing with living under a system of government that hasn't even apologized for committing genocide against them, stealing their land, and stripping them of their rights for centuries. I'd say that under those conditions, it's quite reasonable to not want to be a "good" or "productive" citizen of that society.

trparkyYeah, and that shit needs to end.

Hence the reason why we're having this debate. If trickle-down economics really did work we would not be seeing the huge amounts that CEOs are paid these days while the common working man is barely scraping enough cash together to put food on the table.


Look at how he's handling the Mexico situation, or should I say... not handling it.