Randomness thread, part two.

[CoccoBill]

Indeed. Those rights being tied down to one's wallet thickness seems fair. It's a bit ironic that the beacon of democracy in the world uses an undemocratic electoral college voting system, voter suppression, gerrymandering, silly supreme court lifetime nominations, filibustering, and if all else fails directly influencing state officials to flip electoral votes, among other things.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Don't get me started on the prison system in the "Land of the Free."

[OngBonga]

I just plugged my phone in to charge, and the USB went in first time. You'd think it's 50-50, but it's not. I really can't remember the last time I got it first time. It usually takes two, but sometimes three or four.

[OngBonga]

Saw someone on Twitter have a pop at a blue tick for having a Simpsons avatar. The response was golden...

I have a Simpons avi
Because
I voice the character
On the Simpsons

BURN

[Poopadoop]

Apparently Jordan Petersen is writing a new book. I wonder how many people will buy it after his other book "The 12 rules of life" was followed by him getting hooked on benzos and nearly dying?

(Btw, he's another winner Wuf was behind. So basically if Wuf says someone is great, they're not, seems to be the lesson).

[MadMojoMonkey]

Why you gotta pick on wuf when he's not even here to defend himself?

He was a young guy when he first started posting on FTR, and he grew and changed a lot while he was here.
Last he was here, he was no longer behind Trump or any Republican leaders, but still thought the Rep model is superior to the Dem model.

Whether or not he still supports Peterson is a worthy question, but knowing why he does or does not is sure to be informative. 'Cause wuf wasn't just your average meathead Republican. He's an intelligent person and an economist, and his perspective on things was refreshing.

[OngBonga]

Wuf was really balanced, willing to admit he was wrong, willing to change his opinion, and primarily economically minded.

Also, getting hooked on benzos is not really something I would judge someone for. Addiction is an illness.

Stick to politics.

[Poopadoop]

I like Wuf, but he's not a clear thinker. And he shows poor judgment. Come on.

And getting hooked on benzos is avoidable when you're a grown up man who claims to have his shit together so much you can write a book about having your shit together. Come on.

[Poopadoop]

"Rule 13: Don't get hooked on drugs."

[OngBonga]

I think every single person on the planet shows poor judgement at some point in their life. Apart from babies who die ten seconds after being born.

[Poopadoop]

There's having one too many drinks poor judgement and there's having one too many drinks and driving your car at top speed through a busy city on icy streets poor judgment.

[OngBonga]

I mean, idk how you go "got addicted to benzos" before "drink driving in ice".

[Poopadoop]

Do you have an affinity for grifters or something? You got a chance to stick up for Trump in the other thread.

All JP does is sell snake oil to young, insecure men. If his message was really about helping people be happy, you'd think women would tune in as well.

[OngBonga]

I honestly have no idea who he is. I just took issue with you using his addiction as a reason to judge him.

[OngBonga]

fwiw, I've said similar things to people on Twitter about Maradonna. Judge the fat cunt for cheating, fine, but not for being addicted to cocaine.

[Poopadoop]

Maradona never wrote a self-help book for young men telling them how to live their lives afaik. He was also in his twenties when he started doing drugs, so there's that too.

JP was in his 40/50s and started taking benzos. Not as wise a man as he claimed to be then imo. Now he's writing another book, which is more funny than anything.

[Poopadoop]

Judge the fat cunt for cheating.

Like anyone else would have admitted they handed the ball in and said 'nah we don't want that goal.' Show me one instance of that ever happening in a pro sport and I'll eat my monocle.

[OngBonga]

I'm not talking about his goal. He used ephedrine, a performance enhancing drug. That's the kind of cheating I can't defend.

The "hand of god" goal is no worse than diving for a penalty.

[OngBonga]

Also, you want "we don't want the goal" clips? I could do this for hours.

[Poopadoop]

^ How many of those clips are from the world cup or any game that has any import at all?

[OngBonga]

Well I could but most of the clips have terrible music and it annoys me so much I click "dislike" then close.

Why do people have to ruin videos with music?

[OngBonga]

^ How many of those clips are from the world cup or any game that has any import at all?

This game was very, very important for these two clubs. It was the end of the season, both clubs involved in the promotion race.

[OngBonga]

I should point out that promotion from the Championship to the Premier League is worth a ridiculous amount of money. So yes, extremely important.

[boost]

Jordan Peterson's reason for being known makes his drug addiction a reasonable avenue of critique of Jordan Peterson's work. I do think, Poop, you strayed into attacking him as a fallible person, but it's kind of a fine line.

No one should be shitted on for falling prey to addiction, but the work of a self help personality should definitely be at the very least reexamined if they fall into addiction after having produced said work.

[OngBonga]

That's a pretty fair post boost. Like I say, I don't know who he is, so I'm unfamiliar with his work. But even so, if someone who writes books about self-help and that kind of stuff falls prey to addiction, that only shows how easy it is. And it's equally easy to judge people for it. I'm guilty of this too, in my younger years. I've dabbled in most drugs, but I always kept well clear of heroin because I understood how dangerous it is. More so than cocaine, which is a drug one can take recreationally. One line doesn't mean addiction, but heroin, I think I've met one person in my life who was able to "take it or leave it". I used to think those who got addicted to heroin were weak, because I always had the strength to say "no". But I've spent my entire adult life addicted to weed, and of course tobacco. And I've suffered from depression to the point I can understand why people might want to numb the pain that comes with it. Heroin addiction is better than suicide.

I really don't know how people get into benzos and stuff like that, it's not something I ever had access to. In terms of getting wrecked, pills and acid were enough for me, and it's really difficult to get addicted to these kind of drugs. Of course the point of taking these drugs is to get messed up, not to numb negative emotions. You enjoy the drug, rather than take it because you're not enjoying life. I was partying and life was great. I knew a fair few people addicted to heroin, and they were not enjoying life.

It's an easy trap to fall into, especially if you are unhappy.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Coke is super addictive, ong. If you have done it and didn't immediately feel the first stages of addiction when it wore off, then you're a very lucky person.

I'm lucky in that I did it at a party once over 20 years ago, and didn't know the person who provided it. At the party, I didn't think much of it, but the next day, I was fabricating all sorts of excuses to call the person who threw the party and try to get the contact info of that person. All day. I was super lucky that I didn't know that person, or I'd almost certainly have called them and made an excuse to hang out just hoping they would have more coke.

Luckily, I fought all those thoughts off for the obvious addiction they were. Luckily, they only lasted about a day.

I could so easily see how that road starts innocent, and before you know what's up, your brain is just a fucking liar telling you to do whatever just to get some more coke.

[OngBonga]

Coke is super addictive, ong. If you have done it and didn't immediately feel the first stages of addiction when it wore off, then you're a very lucky person.

It's not as addictive as heroin. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's due to the reasons people get into these drugs in the first place. People do coke because they want to get wrecked. People do heroin because they want to escape the pain of life.

Of course coke is addictive, but it's also a drug that is fairly easy to take in moderation. It's "moorish", a British term which means "I want more", but it's not like the crippling addiction of heroin, which is "I need more".

[Poopadoop]

Again, we're not talking about someone in their 20s who thinks they're invincible and/or doesn't understand how addictive various drugs can be. We're talking about a guy in his 40s/50s with a PhD who starts taking benzos for who-knows-what-reason and is either so arrogant he thinks the rules of addiction don't apply to him or so naive he doesn't understand the dangers and choose a better option for dealing with his problems.

And while I'm sympathetic to someone who develops an addiction early in life and struggles to shake it, getting hooked on drugs in middle age is pretty avoidable and thus pretty dumb imo. This is especially true when you promote yourself as a fountain of wisdom the way Peterson has. If anything I feel sorry for the guy for generally just having a screw loose, but not for not living up to his own hype. I'm not sure which of his 12 rules of life he's broken but it's got to be at least three of them.

[Poopadoop]

I mean fine, you guys are right addiction is not a choice someone makes willingly. But a wise person would not start taking addictive drugs in the first place. I realise I've just called Ong wise for not taking heroin but that's what it is.

btw, i looked up JPs 12 rules, and only about half of them make sense. Maybe some of the others are meant as metaphors but still I will not be posting these on my bathroom mirror.

"Stand up straight with your shoulders back"
"Treat yourself like you are someone you are responsible for helping"
"Make friends with people who want the best for you"
"Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is today"
"Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them"
"Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world"
"Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)"
"Tell the truth — or, at least, don’t lie"
"Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t"
"Be precise in your speech"
"Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding"
"Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street"

[OngBonga]

Again, we're not talking about someone in their 20s who thinks they're invincible and/or doesn't understand how addictive various drugs can be. We're talking about a guy in his 40s/50s with a PhD who starts taking benzos for who-knows-what-reason and is either so arrogant he thinks the rules of addiction don't apply to him or so naive he doesn't understand the dangers and choose a better option for dealing with his problems.

You say it yourself "who knows what reason". It could be depression, it could be a medical condition, insomnia, anxiety, idk but it's not fair to judge him for that alone. It's not arrogance. I'm sure he has given legitimate reasons for you to think he's arrogant, but getting addicted to drugs is not one of them. It can happen to anyone at any time in their life. My housemate, my age, accidentally got addicted to tramadol after suffering from back problems. He's allergic to codeine so that was what he was prescribed. He says the withdrawal from it was horrible, he knew he was addicted but the withdrawal symptoms were nearly as bad as the back pain. It's so easy for it to happen. It's not a simple choice people make. You'd have to ask him why he started taking benzos. If it was for no reason other than to get messed up, then ok I can accept your criticism, but I doubt it's that simple.

The guy is selling books. It's his job to find stupid shit to talk about that people will pay for. It's no different to David Icke talking about lizards.

[Poopadoop]

Funny how sympathetic you are to a right-wing grifter who gets himself addicted to drugs but a coloured person who is poor in the UK has only themselves to blame.

[OngBonga]

That's a really shitty change of subject.

The fact he's right wing is completely irrelevant. I'll say it again. I have no idea who he is. I literally just learned he's right wing because you just told me.

And I only have myself to blame for being poor. If I'd have applied myself, I wouldn't be. My opinions have nothing to do with colour. That's an obsession you have, not me.

[Poopadoop]

Your problem is you can't see past your own nose to understand that others' experiences aren't the same as yours, and that what applies to you personally doesn't always apply to everyone. Every time we debate a topic you always come back to discussing how it relates to you or a mate of yours.

It's a really myopic worldview and I wish you would try to get past it.

[boost]

Again, we're not talking about someone in their 20s who thinks they're invincible and/or doesn't understand how addictive various drugs can be. We're talking about a guy in his 40s/50s with a PhD who starts taking benzos for who-knows-what-reason and is either so arrogant he thinks the rules of addiction don't apply to him or so naive he doesn't understand the dangers and choose a better option for dealing with his problems.

And while I'm sympathetic to someone who develops an addiction early in life and struggles to shake it, getting hooked on drugs in middle age is pretty avoidable and thus pretty dumb imo. This is especially true when you promote yourself as a fountain of wisdom the way Peterson has. If anything I feel sorry for the guy for generally just having a screw loose, but not for not living up to his own hype. I'm not sure which of his 12 rules of life he's broken but it's got to be at least three of them.

Yeah, no, you're binary justification for judgement based in an absurd arbitrary distinction in age is dumb.

I will agree that as one ages and becomes more experienced in the ways of the world, they should have more defenses against forming an addiction-- but the idea that they should have an addiction proof impenetrable fortress is a lazy thought. People are complicated and people's situations are ever variant. Don't be lazy.

edit: Because you didn't interact with it, I'm not sure if you didn't read my post or read it and didn't comprehend the distinction I was making.

The distinction is between criticizing him as a person for getting addicted and criticizing his self help ideas which he exported to the world but wasn't able to use to avoid his recent personal disasters.

Do you not see the value in this distinction?

[boost]

And I only have myself to blame for being poor. If I'd have applied myself, I wouldn't be.

Haha, what? No. The self deprecation may feed some hole you have, but this is absurd on its face. You have your loser parents to blame, and they theirs. You have genetics to blame. You have the environment to blame.

Wallowing in these truths may not be productive, but that's a different conversation.

[OngBonga]

Your problem is you can't see past your own nose to understand that others' experiences aren't the same as yours, and that what applies to you personally doesn't always apply to everyone. Every time we debate a topic you always come back to discussing how it relates to you or a mate of yours.

It's a really myopic worldview and I wish you would try to get past it.

Your problem is it all comes down to race and ideology. Your last post was really shitty.

You literally told me I'm sympathetic to right wingers, despite me knowing nothing about the guy we're talking about. You literally said that I don't sympathise with "coloured people" (that's not a cool thing to say in 2020 but whatever, it's fine by me) as though I'm motivated by race. We weren't talking about race, there was no reason for you to bring that up other than to take a dig at me.

I try to engage with you in a sincere and mostly respectful way (with a little banter and trolling), while you hold me in contempt. It's clear. I don't hold you in contempt. It's getting difficult to maintain that though when you always gravitate back to race and politics.

I talk about my experiences because it's something I am qualified to discuss. I can't put myself in other peoples' heads. I can try, but ultimately I'm guessing.

[OngBonga]

Haha, what? No. The self deprecation may feed some hole you have, but this is absurd on its face. You have your loser parents to blame, and they theirs. You have genetics to blame. You have the environment to blame.

Wallowing in these truths may not be productive, but that's a different conversation.

I don't sympathise with poor migrants in this country because, for the most part, they are less poor than they were in their country of origin, which is precisely why they're still here instead of back home. I'm less poor than people in other countries. Our idea of "poor" is absurd when compared to third world countries.

And just to clarify, my parents weren't losers. My Dad was, but my Mom wasn't.

[OngBonga]

btw, I remind you that I have been defending Maradonna's drug addiction on Twitter. That guy was left wing as fuck.

Ideology is irrelevant to me when we talk about this subject.

[Poopadoop]

The distinction is between criticizing him as a person for getting addicted and criticizing his self help ideas which he exported to the world but wasn't able to use to avoid his recent personal disasters.

Do you not see the value in this distinction?

I kinda thought I was doing the latter - like who would buy a book from this guy who can't even apply his own principles of wisdom?

[Poopadoop]

I try to engage with you in a sincere and mostly respectful way

You had me going up to here. I don't think "engage" is a proper word for what you do. Engage would involve trying to learn things and become better informed, and inform others. What you do is bullshit.

while you hold me in contempt. It's clear.

I don't hold you in contempt. I hold many of your arguments in contempt as being little more than lazy trolling. If you want your arguments to be respected, then provide arguments that are supported with real evidence, I guess.

I talk about my experiences because it's something I am qualified to discuss. I can't put myself in other peoples' heads. I can try, but ultimately I'm guessing.

The point is anecdotes are irrelevant in the big scheme of things. There's millions of poor people in the UK and by talking about yourself it implies that based on your experience and conclusion that you deserve to be poort, that they all have it coming. I'm not even convinced you have it coming.

[OngBonga]

You had me going up to here. I don't think "engage" is a proper word for what you do. Engage would involve trying to learn things and become better informed, and inform others. What you do is bullshit.

What you do is bullshit. You were losing a debate about judging people for being addicted to drugs, so rather than back down, you turned it into a matter of ideology and race. Is that your idea of engaging?

I don't hold you in contempt.

Liar. You relentlessly present me as racist. Every opportunity, even when we're not talking about race.

The point is anecdotes are irrelevant in the big scheme of things. There's millions of poor people in the UK and by talking about yourself it implies that based on your experience and conclusion that you deserve to be poort, that they all have it coming. I'm not even convinced you have it coming.

The UK is a land of opportunity. Pretty much anyone can work hard and be successful. Pretty much anyone can go to college and better themselves. Being poor in the UK is a choice. Not a conscious choice, but it's a choice. There are lots of migrants who come here and drag themselves above the poverty line. Lots. And there are lots of white British folk who don't.

I had my chance. I went to college, and spent more time at the pub. I'm smart enough to have done much better with my life. I can't blame anyone else for that. So yeah, I had it coming. But luckily for me, poor in this country is still wealthy by global standards.

[Poopadoop]

What you do is bullshit. You were losing a debate about judging people for being addicted to drugs, so rather than back down, you turned it into a matter of ideology and race. Is that your idea of engaging?

I pretty much said 'yeah ok i get what you guys mean but don't really agree'. It wasn't a debate so much as a difference of opinion. There's no objective truth in either position.

Liar.

I guess that's your idea of being respectful lol.

You relentlessly present me as racist. Every opportunity, even when we're not talking about race.

Where did I say you were racist. I only implied you don't think race is a factor in poverty. That's not racist, it's ignorant.

The UK is a land of opportunity. Pretty much anyone can work hard and be successful. Pretty much anyone can go to college and better themselves. Being poor in the UK is a choice. Not a conscious choice, but it's a choice. There are lots of migrants who come here and drag themselves above the poverty line. Lots. And there are lots of white British folk who don't. I had my chance. I went to college, and spent more time at the pub. I'm smart enough to have done much better with my life. I can't blame anyone else for that. So yeah, I had it coming. But luckily for me, poor in this country is still wealthy by global standards.

Can't wait for your autobiography to come out. Especially for chapters 7 through 21 where you explain with examples how you understand society so well based on your own personal experience of n = 1.

[OngBonga]

I guess that's your idea of being respectful lol.

I did say mostly respectful, but calling someone a liar when I think they are not being truthful is not what I'd call disrespectful. You regularly take a tone of contempt with me, even when it's completely unjustified. That comment of yours about me sympathising with right wingers and bringing race into it was out of the blue.

Where did I say you were racist. I only implied you don't think race is a factor in poverty. That's not racist, it's ignorant.

Race isn't a factor, not here in the UK. You just think it is because immigration status is a factor, and most migrants are black. But these people are not poor because they're black, they're poor because they're migrants. You seem incapable of separating these factors. I think it's you who's ignorant.

[boost]

I don't sympathise with poor migrants in this country because, for the most part, they are less poor than they were in their country of origin, which is precisely why they're still here instead of back home. I'm less poor than people in other countries. Our idea of "poor" is absurd when compared to third world countries.

And just to clarify, my parents weren't losers. My Dad was, but my Mom wasn't.

You've changed the subject. The subject is whether it is the fault of the poor that they're poor, or due to merit that the rich are rich. You aren't the author of your circumstances any more than a tree is the author of its own. Hopefully though your circumstances can be such that you are a cog that lessens the aggregate suffering in the world.

[OngBonga]

The subject is whether it is the fault of the poor that they're poor...

Ok, well I'll address this. In some cases yes it is. In other cases, no it's not. But we can't all be wealthy, so it's not like there's a solution. Wealth distribution isn't going to work, as it disincentivises hard work and study.

...or due to merit that the rich are rich.

Again, in some cases yes, in other cases no. But again, what's the solution? I'm not a big fan of people being born into wealth, but on the other hand an individual has the right to spend his money how he pleases, and if that individual chooses to hand his money to his children, that's not my business.

You aren't the author of your circumstances

Why aren't I? I chose to party instead of study. I chose to do fuck all with my life instead of get a shitty job. I am where I am because of the choices I have made in life. Other people are poor because they didn't have a chance, but wealth is not the source of happiness. I'd rather be poor and happy than wealthy and unhappy. Wouldn't you? Being poor is not the worst thing that can happen to a person.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I do side with boost on this one.
So, so, so many people work as hard or harder and don't get the random luck to be "successful" and reap the same rewards.
Or don't have the random genetics to be charismatic negotiators when it comes to employee evaluation time. Or to get their dream job in the first place. Or to have had the financial backing to go to a good college. Or any college. Or be born in a good neighborhood with good schools.

There is certainly personal agency, but I think there's also this huge egotistical veil of perspective that each of us has more agency than we actually do.


I have never seen any evidence that more pay = more incentive or harder work. I hear it thrown around like it's common sense, but it's the opposite of sense. I'm not saying money doesn't incentivize. I'm saying that it's a perk. People don't become school teachers because of the pay. They couldn't do it without pay, but that's not why they do it. That's true for almost any intelligent person. You work because you need money, but you pursue your passion because it's your passion.

Nobel laureates didn't advance their field in greatness because they wanted the fat loot of science fame... they did it because they are passionate about science.


Unfettering people from financial chains allows them to pursue their passion and greatness as they see fit. That's also common sense.

[OngBonga]

What's the solution? If we change the system so that people like me become more wealthy, despite contributing nothing to society, how does that improve society? It doesn't. No system will be perfect. The existence of poor people is itself an incentive for others to work hard. Ok, no matter how hard you work, you're not going to be a billionaire. But if you work hard, at least in the UK and USA, you won't be poor.

Money isn't a perk for most people. A teacher might do it for the passion, but a bin man doesn't.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're changing the subject unless you're implicitly agreeing with the sentiment that wealth is not a consequence of effort. Ergo blaming poor people for being poor is inhumane.

If you do agree on that, then I'm fine to change the subject to what intelligent people would promote in the light of said truth.

[OngBonga]

Ergo blaming poor people for being poor is inhumane.

People being poor is an inevitable consequence of the world we live in. I find it absurd to even talk about people being poor in our countries. Yes there is a small percentage of people in the UK and USA living in true poverty, but it's a fraction of the population. And it's often a consequence of life choices.

Nearly everyone in our countries have the power to better their lives. It's not inhumane to make this point.

[OngBonga]

You're changing the subject unless you're implicitly agreeing with the sentiment that wealth is not a consequence of effort.

It can be a consequence of effort. Modest wealth, certainly. You don't become a billionaire by working 50 hours a week and saving up, but you can be wealthy. You just have to make the right choices in life.

[Poopadoop]

You aren't the author of your circumstances any more than a tree is the author of its own. Hopefully though your circumstances can be such that you are a cog that lessens the aggregate suffering in the world.

This Boost guy is smoking just the right amount of weed. Ong, I hope you are taking notes.

[OngBonga]

It's the end of the month, I'm on no weed. Definitely not the right amount.

[MadMojoMonkey]

People being poor is an inevitable consequence of the world we live in. I find it absurd to even talk about people being poor in our countries. Yes there is a small percentage of people in the UK and USA living in true poverty, but it's a fraction of the population. And it's often a consequence of mental illness.

FYP

Nearly everyone in our countries have the power to better their lives. It's not inhumane to make this point.

No, what's inhumane is to assert that people with everything in the deck stacked against them can magically pull themselves out of poor neighborhoods overrun with crime and crap schools with parents under too much stress to give emotional support to them to suddenly understand that all they have to do is deny everything they know and live what is only a fairy tale in their world.

And then to look at those people who actually live up to your standard as beneath your concern because they're poor immigrants who aren't as poor as they could theoretically be.

What's your argument? If someone isn't the single most miserable sod in the world, they don't deserve compassion and support?

[boost]

I do side with boost on this one.
So, so, so many people work as hard or harder and don't get the random luck to be "successful" and reap the same rewards.
Or don't have the random genetics to be charismatic negotiators when it comes to employee evaluation time. Or to get their dream job in the first place. Or to have had the financial backing to go to a good college. Or any college. Or be born in a good neighborhood with good schools.

There is certainly personal agency, but I think there's also this huge egotistical veil of perspective that each of us has more agency than we actually do.


I have never seen any evidence that more pay = more incentive or harder work. I hear it thrown around like it's common sense, but it's the opposite of sense. I'm not saying money doesn't incentivize. I'm saying that it's a perk. People don't become school teachers because of the pay. They couldn't do it without pay, but that's not why they do it. That's true for almost any intelligent person. You work because you need money, but you pursue your passion because it's your passion.

Nobel laureates didn't advance their field in greatness because they wanted the fat loot of science fame... they did it because they are passionate about science.


Unfettering people from financial chains allows them to pursue their passion and greatness as they see fit. That's also common sense.

I'm happy to work with this argument, I think it is still a winning argument against whatever drivel Ong is shoveling, but I'm not quite sure we agree. I meant what I said: you are not the author of your circumstances, full stop. There is no action that you can trace back to agency. Whatever you want to point to and call agency, it is never itself the prime mover. Upon examination it will be forever mysterious to you why you picked red over blue or vice versa. We can make up a story post hoc, but that's all it is. If it's not an arbitrary decision, then you're admitting that you didn't actually have a choice.

But maybe that's a bit of a tangent since I think we are likely, for the most part, in agreement on how to/how not to address people's lack of agency.

[OngBonga]

FYP

I'm twice as poor as most people who are legally recognised as mentally ill. They get twice the benefits I do.

No, what's inhumane is to assert...

It's not magic. I could argue it's inhumane to assume that people who are poor are destined to a life of poverty. They're not.

And then to look at those people who actually live up to your standard as beneath your concern because they're poor immigrants who aren't as poor as they could theoretically be.

Is anyone concerned about me? Why are you concerned about poor immigrants, but not a poor native Englishman? I was in foster homes, and children's homes, I've suffered from mental health problems, I'm poor. Why are you telling me I'm inhumane for not giving a fuck about poor people, but people who don't give a fuck about me aren't inhumane?

Nobody should give a fuck about me. I'm fine. Being poor isn't a problem for me. I still have a roof over my head and enough food in the cupboard. And that applies to the vast majority of people in the UK. Those who it doesn't apply to, they have the power to change it. All they have to do is apply for benefits. And if they spend that money on heroin or alcohol, that's a life choice, just like it's a life choice that I spent a quarter of my money on weed.

What's your argument? If someone isn't the single most miserable sod in the world, they don't deserve compassion and support?

My argument is that people have the power to change their life if they are unhappy. If they don't do that, I'm not going to waste my emotional energy caring about it.

[CoccoBill]

Personal effort and work ethic certainly help, but none of this is binary. Comparing WASPs from a good family to a colored immigrant, it might be that the immigrant is a lot more likely to live in a poorer area and not have access to the good schools. They might have to work extra and not have time to study as hard. They're probably somewhat less likely to be selected for a good job. The repercussions they face for mistakes they make are probably seen a bit less forgivable compared to someone local. And so on and so on. None of these things alone determine anything, but they add up.

I would say a person from a good family and environment needs to fuck up somewhat to not succeed in life, whereas an immigrant can afford to make no mistakes and still needs to have some luck to get even close to succeeding similarly. Saying everything is just up to the persons themselves is massively ignorant.

[CoccoBill]

people who don't give a fuck about me aren't inhumane?

Um who's said anything like that?

[OngBonga]

Mojo is implying I'm inhumane because I don't give a fuck about poor people in the UK. Well I'm poor, so he's also implying that people who don't care about me are inhumane. Unless, of course, he only cares about immigrants.

[OngBonga]

Saying everything is just up to the persons themselves is massively ignorant.

While saying the opposite is giving people excuses for not applying themselves as best they could.

Immigrants in the UK are, for the most part, better off than they were. That's why they come here. It's very easy to be better off than I am. Very easy. That doesn't require 50 hour a week of graft, it doesn't require a degree, it just requires having a job.

[CoccoBill]

Yes, they can succeed, but this is about societal level odds. No one's claiming that 100% of people from a good background make it, and 100% of those from a poor background don't. It's about how likely each is, and how much work is needed by each to get the same outcome. Being white and having rich parents is so massively +EV, that they're not even playing the same game.

[OngBonga]

I'm sorry but this is not about race, no matter how much you guys keep saying it. There are LOTS of (relatively) poor white people in the UK. There are lots of estates filled with white people who are generally known as "chavs", that haven't got a pot to piss in. But let's ignore these people because, y'know, it doesn't suit the leftist agenda of making white people feel terrible for being white.

Do you actually have a solution other than telling people they are inhumane?

[OngBonga]

Having rich parents is definitely +ev, but that doesn't just apply to white people. Indians, Chinese, Japanese, we have plenty of wealthy people of colour in this country, plenty of them at college thanks to their parents' wealth.

There's not much that can be done about that though. If you're a wealthy person, do you think you shouldn't have the right to spend your wealth on a good education for your children? Is that a problem for you?

[boost]

Ong, stop being dense. Having rich parents is massively +ev. Separately, having white skin is +ev. And unsurprisingly having rich parents and being white is more +ev than either alone. We can of course add gender, it and race being noninsignificant, but certainly less impactful than wealth.

I really do get how triggering it can be for a poor white person to hear that their skin color has given them a leg up, but that doesn't make it untrue. However, I do think there is a serious failure in messaging from the left regarding this. A combination of wealth and class are far more significant factors-- it's just that speaking in extremes helps to illustrate an issue, and the extreme of privilege happens to include wealth, class, race, gender, etc.

[OngBonga]

You're being dense. You are wilfully ignoring the large number of white British folk who live in shitty estates. Being white isn't +ev for them, certainly not economically. The left are so obsessed with race and victimhood it's ridiculous, and actually very counterproductive. By dismissing poor white people as irrelevant, you're doing more harm than good.

Having rich parents if of course +ev. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not jealous. Luck is part of life.

This idea that being white is +ev is bullshit, in the UK anyway. We're not a racist country, despite what xenophobic England-haters would like you to think. That's why so many migrants would prefer to come here than stay in France. It's a better place for them to be, economically and socially.

The left are obsessed with race, yet accuse the right of being racist. The irony is painful.

[Poopadoop]

the large number of white British folk who live in shitty estates. Being white isn't +ev for them, certainly not economically.

Being white is not what made them poor. You seem to think as long as there are some poor white people and some wealthy POC you can point to, that' proves race doesn't influence income.

This idea that being white is +ev is bullshit, in the UK anyway.

I agree with the salty stoner on this one. You are being dense.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ong, you're really not being fair at all. You know I have an abundance of respect for you. I tried to change my vacation plans in March just to go to a pub with you, but I just couldn't afford it at that time. The assertion that I'd say it's inhumane to care about you is so disrespectful to what I'd hope you know about me: I consider you a friend.

To that end, I'm sorry if I said something foolish and made you feel like I wasn't or am not respecting you.


I'm saying that your position about selecting which humans deserve consideration and care is inhumane. Your position of blaming people for being poor - more specifically - asserting that they are less deserving of consideration and care because they are poor - is inhumane. It's asserting far more agency than a rational view of those people's life history allows.

The sheer disadvantage of not going to a good primary school is huge. A person who doesn't get a solid early start in school is far less likely to ever get their feet under them in the educational system. That was not any of their choice as children. Yet the consequences are embedded into what society will offer them.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Your position that race doesn't matter is at stark odds with your position on Muslim immigration, I think.

Not to assert that all Muslims are non-white, which is not true at all.

Just has that stink about it, you know?


I can't speak to the effects and/or advantages of being white in the UK. I can absolutely say without any scientific doubt that it is a big factor in a million small ways in the US. And some really big, overt ways, too. Like systematically removing the right of black men to vote by over-criminalizing black cultural vices to felonies while leaving white cultural vices as misdemeanors.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I meant what I said: you are not the author of your circumstances, full stop. There is no action that you can trace back to agency. Whatever you want to point to and call agency, it is never itself the prime mover. Upon examination it will be forever mysterious to you why you picked red over blue or vice versa. We can make up a story post hoc, but that's all it is. If it's not an arbitrary decision, then you're admitting that you didn't actually have a choice.

But maybe that's a bit of a tangent since I think we are likely, for the most part, in agreement on how to/how not to address people's lack of agency.

I ultimately agree that is what the evidence shows at this time.

However, it's not ever going to matter culturally. People "feel" agency. Full stop, as you say.

Without agency, the whole criminal justice system needs rebuilding. No one chose to be a murderer, nor could they have chosen not to... it's not anyone's fault that they do what they do... they're just a collection of chemical reactions running its inevitable course.

Fine, then society still needs to remove dangerous elements... but based on what arguments and to what end? The notion of "rehabilitation" is no longer on the table, so what, then?

How do we account for the fact that just because someone was a danger to society once or twice or ten times that they will do so again? Is it just a statistics game? Fine... all I'm saying is that all the current arguments that support the entire structure of crime and punishment are off the table if personal agency is a total myth.


And people wont buy it, so to speak.
So it's effectively a moot point to embrace it when talking about cultural structures.

[OngBonga]

Being white is not what made them poor.

No, and being black doesn't make people poor in the UK either. Being a migrant might. Again, you are completely incapable of separating these factors. They are one and the same to you.

They are not the same thing.

[OngBonga]

To that end, I'm sorry if I said something foolish and made you feel like I wasn't or am not respecting you.

Dude there's no need for this. When we talk about politics, especially matters of race, it gets heated. I consider all you guys friends, poop included, which is why I get a little bothered about him holding me in contempt for political opinions.

You used the word "inhumane" and that triggered a response. We have vastly different political opinions, and that probably comes from the fact that, in my opinion, you care too much about things you cannot control, you have too much empathy. And I lack empathy because I'm cynical and possibly sociopathic. These are traits, not choices. Lacking empathy allows me to hold views that some people might find uncaring, but it also allows me to view politics without emotion influencing me.

Life is shit for a lot of people. We can't do anything about that. All we can do is speculate about whether the system we have in place is the best we can do. Probably not, but it's good enough that for the most part, hard work and study will result in a better life. That's a good thing. Some people are less fortunate than others, but look, migrants in this country are a great deal more fortunate than their brothers back home. Let's not forget that. It's not right to point to migrants and say "they're poor, so something is wrong". The fact they're here, and able to thrive if they make the right choices, and perhaps get a little lucky, shows we're doing something right. We can't remove the luck factor because it's part of life. I was unlucky. I don't allow that to make me feel bad about myself. I know I can be quite self depreciating, but consider that I am happy, which for me is a lot more important than being "successful", which is an extremely subjective term. Wealth to me isn't success. Happiness is. I've spent enough of my life being unhappy to appreciate that.

I'm saying that your position about selecting which humans deserve consideration and care is inhumane.

Allow me to clarify myself. I'm not choosing some humans to give a fuck about, and not others. I don't give a fuck about anyone who is not family or friend. I don't have the emotional capacity for it. If that's a personality flaw, so be it. I don't think it's inhumane though. You can disagree all you like, but if you use that word to describe me, or my opinions, then expect me to respond in a way that you might find challenging.

The sheer disadvantage of not going to a good primary school is huge.

In terms of being wealthy, yes, you're right. In terms of not being poor, no, you're wrong. You do not need a good education to hold down a job in the UK. Perhaps you need a good education to be a doctor, a teacher, or a lawyer, but not to be a retail assistant, or a fruit picker, or a bin man. There are plenty of opportunities in the UK for uneducated people, provided they are willing to work hard. And there are plenty of opportunities for people to improve their education as an adult. So when we talk about not being poor, going to a good school is not a factor.

Your position that race doesn't matter is at stark odds with your position on Muslim immigration, I think.

First of all, Islam is not a race. Secondly, Asian Muslims are largely successful in this country in the sense that they tend to have jobs and support themselves. African Muslims have more problems. That's likely due to a variety of factors, such as not studying English at school, coming from places that have suffered from internal wars and atrocities, coming from lawless places, and coming here alone instead of with family.

I can't talk about USA in the same way because I've never been there. It's a different world to the UK, even if we do share a lot of cultural similarities.

[boost]

I ultimately agree that is what the evidence shows at this time.

However, it's not ever going to matter culturally. People "feel" agency. Full stop, as you say.

Without agency, the whole criminal justice system needs rebuilding. No one chose to be a murderer, nor could they have chosen not to... it's not anyone's fault that they do what they do... they're just a collection of chemical reactions running its inevitable course.

Fine, then society still needs to remove dangerous elements... but based on what arguments and to what end? The notion of "rehabilitation" is no longer on the table, so what, then?

How do we account for the fact that just because someone was a danger to society once or twice or ten times that they will do so again? Is it just a statistics game? Fine... all I'm saying is that all the current arguments that support the entire structure of crime and punishment are off the table if personal agency is a total myth.


And people wont buy it, so to speak.
So it's effectively a moot point to embrace it when talking about cultural structures.

You're right, the status quo of mainly retributive justice is addressing a reality that doesn't exist. If a solution addresses a reality that isn't real, how likely is that solution to work? Is it working? But you want to throw your hands up and say we're stuck with it? Milquetoast status-quo embracing liberalism.

Rehabilitation and retributive justice are not the same. We do a lot of the latter to our detriment. Now are there and will there likely always be people among us that simply can't be left roaming in society? Yeah, definitely. And we should 1) segregate them from society in the most humane way we're capable of and 2) regularly check in to make sure we weren't wrong in our diagnosis.

If you're really worried that we'll never get enough people on board with our apparent lack of free will, that's fine, we can appeal to their humanity-- the convicts aren't the only victims. The current system necessitates passive if not active abusers to facilitate its operation. The prison staff, guards, nurses, administrators, etc all are regular civilians, looking for a pay check, and they are living (part time) in these miniature hells too.

[boost]

You're being dense. You are wilfully ignoring the large number of white British folk who live in shitty estates. Being white isn't +ev for them, certainly not economically. The left are so obsessed with race and victimhood it's ridiculous, and actually very counterproductive. By dismissing poor white people as irrelevant, you're doing more harm than good.

Having rich parents if of course +ev. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not jealous. Luck is part of life.

This idea that being white is +ev is bullshit, in the UK anyway. We're not a racist country, despite what xenophobic England-haters would like you to think. That's why so many migrants would prefer to come here than stay in France. It's a better place for them to be, economically and socially.

The left are obsessed with race, yet accuse the right of being racist. The irony is painful.

Ong, it's simple (it's not, but the concept can be easily grasped),
rich white people are +5
rich black people are +4
middle class whites are +2
middle class blacks are +1
working class white are +1
working class blacks are 0
poor whites are -4.5
poor blacks are -5

Is it really that hard to see how one feature of a person can be an advantage while their net advantage is still negative?

Your aspiness makes you way better at chess than I am, but I'm not trying to trade places. (maybe this is harsh, but if I didn't bait you here, you'd spazz about how the numerical assignments I gave no effort to don't accurately scale to real world advantages, so, w/e, suck it up)

[OngBonga]

Opinion not fact.

[boost]

Opinion not fact.

Right, just like your opinion that race is inconsequential. But tell me which is more plausible:

1) Race has no bearing on one's movement in society, there is absolutely not advantage or disadvantage to being one race or another

or

2) Something like what I laid out is true, even if the races are all out of order?

[OngBonga]

Do you think employers in the UK are interviewing white people and then interviewing black people and making decisions based on skin colour?

Don't get me wrong, there will certainly be rare instances. But guess what? That works both ways.

I don't believe that, in the UK, race is a factor. It was in the 1970s, and it might be again in the 2020s because the left are fucking up 40 years of progress, but right now, no. It's literally illegal to discriminate based on race.

So I choose 1, there is no advantage or disadvantage.

There might be a disadvantage if you don't speak English, or are unable to provide a reference, so there's obstacles for migrants. But like I say to poop, they are two different things.