I hate it when posts gets concatenated and then don't show up on the "My posts" link with anything new...

(February 7, 2017 at 6:56 am)Violet Wrote:

(February 7, 2017 at 6:48 am)pocaracas Wrote: Deserve, I think they all do deserve.
But why are you using your white male dominant bias to label and group other people?

What basis does his being born a filthy white male have on his asking questions, and observing inconsistencies?

"filthy"... nice addition... -.-'

Anyway, it pertains to the bias with which he enters the question and his observations.
I know we're always biased somehow, but it's not a bad idea to try... try real hard to remove biases.
But he doesn't seem to try that...

(February 7, 2017 at 6:56 am)Violet Wrote:

Quote:Deserve, again... if both individuals perform equally well, they deserve equal compensation for their work.
In practice, do those two "groups" perform equally well?

That would be my personal understanding of economics, as I am not bound by socialism in my answer. This man is economically liberal, the question doesn't apply in the Oppression Olympics.

In terms of the Oppression Olympics, it doesn't matter what an individual's personal ability is within their groups, as all that matters is how much a person's 'group' is viewed to suffer. In this way, OP's question involves an internal inconsistency within intersecional feminism that has been turning him more 'right wing'/'traditionalist'.

Well then, it seems that the OP is taking one of two extreme positions, instead of being part of what I'd consider to be the reasonable middle-ground.
Again, clearly showing his pre-existing bias.

(February 7, 2017 at 6:56 am)Violet Wrote:

Quote:Care to show us some figures as to how many veterans are housed and taken care for, versus how many refugees are housed and taken care of?
Also, why are there so many homeless veterans to begin with? Perhaps that's a more worthwhile research path that will help fix that internal problem.

If you're a refugee taken in by a Western country: you are housed. That is, all of them. If you're an illegal immigrant who has made their way through 6 different 'safe havens' so that you could get to your ideal country of choice and set up a life there... you're not a refugee: you're an illegal economic migrant, and you are owed nothing.

Because homeless vets are often nonfunctional and/or fucked up and/or had shitty home lives that won't help them get on their feet and/or are very poor because the military isn't a particularly lucrative career... but that isn't the real question here that is being asked.

This is about about the culture of the left, which celebrates refugees and spits on veterans, which is an inconsistency within the oppression Olympics, and hence the unsettled strangeness OP finds themselves within.

Again, two extreme views are portrayed, where a middle road appears as the desirable.

Refugee status isn't given lightly, and I'm pretty sure there's some sort of quota system in place. This quota ensures that the budget doesn't get out of control.
Homeless people, veterans or otherwise, become homeless due to a variety of factors and the government should, of course, deal with it, but not in such a way that would encourage people to become dependent on the government for housing. There's certainly an allocated budget for these people and although I don't know numbers, I'd think that it's larger than that allocated to refugees.
It's obviously not enough to cover everyone, but the government should also try to fix that problem from the other side: employability of people prior to them becoming unemployed; home security - helping people with some sort of subsidy to prevent homelessness while attempting to find a new job; etc etc etc... Tons of mechanisms and things to cover - it's a damn complex issue, specially in a "liberal economy" setting.

(February 7, 2017 at 6:56 am)Violet Wrote:

Quote:Because race is mostly objective and good looks are a bit subjective?
Either way, it's a false dichotomy, what you're using here... you know that, right?

I don't know about you... but I'd prefer to work with someone who's pleasant to look at, provided the alternative offered as much promise in terms of actually getting the work done.

If you have two different people, from two different races, but showing equal promise of getting the work done, how do you, as an HR guy, decide who to hire?

No, both applying in any manner whatsoever is a subjective distinction, not an objective one. Were there a race of humans that had 6 arms and they were far more physically capable in every conceivable way, it would still be a subjective decision involving value metrics of the hiring employer as to whether to hire a limp noodle white male or Kali.

That just makes you willing to approve over one human more than another for something that neither human could control and was decided by birth... which while I consider that fine, me being a classical liberal, is beside the point of the OP, a person who is involved in a review of the inconsistencies his progressive friends ignore.

When you're talking about oppressed people... why are ugly people not on the list? Who is going to protect ugly people from the pay disparity between the uglies and the beauts?

Again, a deeper cause exists for such pay disparity in the statistics.
Should the law change to force such disparity to become non-existent?
Or should we find some way to boost ugly people's confidence, thus leading them to better positions?
Should that boost start with a law? or within society at large? (the same society that votes for our leaders)

(February 7, 2017 at 6:56 am)Violet Wrote:

Quote:Who said it was OK to pay shorter people less?
Just because statistics show it to be the case, doesn't mean that, for the same job, they get paid less.
The problem is you're probably using crappy statistics.
Do short people get into high paying jobs? Maybe, on average, there's much less of such people in these jobs, thus elevating the average pay for taller people?
And why?
I'd wager that higher paying jobs (in this present capitalist society) are in the hands of confident people and it is well known that taller people feel more confident and, hence, get those jobs, while short people, lacking in confidence, are not hired, some don't even go out to get them... remaining in low paying jobs.

I don't see anyone out there campaigning for the rights of short people as they apply to pay equity.

One could say the same thing about women vs men's supposed pay disparity... but then, I'm not a liberal, so I really don't have to defend those terrible statistics. However, what I will do is suppose that they are true for the purposes of providing a proper review of what the original poster believes.

People tend to respect tall people more than short people, right out the gate. It's a shared problem with hiring women vs hiring men: employers innately respect men more. How can it be right to defend the pay equity for women, and likewise to ignore the pay and opportunity disparity between short people and tall people? Shouldn't every average person be paid similarly to the tremendous economic boons afforded to the advantageous tall?

Again, it's a society problem. Why do tall people get more respect? What have they done to gain such respect? grew tall? wow talk about winning the genetic lottery!

Respect should be earned on a case-by-case basis.
If the majority of people fail at this, then how should we teach them to learn it and pass it on?

(February 7, 2017 at 6:56 am)Violet Wrote:

Quote:Maybe you should get your head out of your hole-in-the-ground, stop whining and look at the big picture!
Avoid false dichotomies, false comparisons, search for the real reasons for things... and try to make them better.

I don't believe the OP has his head in any hole... the reason for the questions is due to introspection and confusion that have come from observing the world outside his peer group, and the overall result is that a hyper-progressive to the point of wealth-redistribution and poverty-virtuism has steadily become more 'traditionalist' or 'conservative' in his eyes (even though he is is anything but with many of his views, just not nearly so rabid a progressivist).

There've been no false dichotomies, there have been no bad comparisons, and the point of the post is a search for reality and perhaps even a sense of belonging (hence not knowing what to call himself).

I think he has his head in a biased statistical view of the world, where the actual people are mistreated and discriminated out of high pays, when it may not be the case for the majority of cases.
The majority of those disparities are probably due to other factors that don't show up in statistics.

(February 7, 2017 at 10:47 am)Faith No More Wrote: You Lol, how exactly does one go about determining who is a "transtrender"?  Who's to say whose dysmorphia is real and whose isn't?  What makes your legitimate and someone else's illegitimate?

In a word...? Science. Mine is proven to exist and has an invasive treatment plan that seems to mostly work... but genderfluidity and genderqueers and their associated 93 genders? Not proven to exist, no treatment possible since it is rarely remotely static: it's at best delusion, and it seems very likely that the only thing to blame for it is the same people who thought that trannies should have legislation saying 'it's okay to go to the bathroom you feel you belong in' (rather than, gee... killing the segregation and changing structures to being more secure to begin with?) - intersectional feminism. Suddenly it's become very popular to be trans, and you gain many points in the oppression Olympics (your friends) when you do. Genderqueers are a social construct, not a physiological one. Trannies do NOT want to be visible, and making a kerfuffle on their behalf does far more harm than letting small injustices and struggles lie. If they wanted a real change here, then the legal system was not the way to go: there is a pushback coming, and I resent it like all hell.

And... dysphoria and dysmorphia are significantly different, actually, but I don't think you intended to say that so, no point to really responding to something you probably don't mean.

Quote:Funny, in all my numerous trips to mental hospitals I've never run into anyone suffering from simply being transgender.  That's not say it can't lead to real mental health issues, but you're just assuming that the most of the discomfort is physiological as opposed to being imposed by society.  It doesn't appear that everyone agrees with you...

That's is my experience. Society is responsible for a ton of suffering related to it, don't get me wrong: environment matters... but the environment isn't what's made me infertile though my biology screams for me to deliver children... environment isn't what makes me incapable of the simple intimacy of having my lover inside me in a manner that isn't just gross... environment isn't what causes me to feel a strong base level of paranoia and uncertainty with myself regarding whether facial hair or unfortunately well-sized genitalia is showing in the faintest way, or adam's apple, or broad shoulders, or chiseled cheekbones and wide jaw, or sunken eyes and strong brow (granted, environment CAN take this base level problem from troubling and depressing in the best environment to absolutely maddening paranoia and misery in an environment where all of my work (and, honestly, relative success) means nothing). Also, taking nasty pills is annoying, whatever problem you have that forces you to do so, but what would life be without the little annoyances.

If I had had an absolutely always supportive environment, never saw any level of bullying or ostracization in highschool and college, never developed the secondary sexual characteristics of men in any form: I would still be suffering from my infertility as a woman, I would still be suffering from being locked out of the sex I'm driven to have with my husband-to-be, and I would still feel paranoia in every interaction under the sun (it's easier to have paranoid delusions and Lucys in the dark alone than it is to feel the entire world pressing in like I'm under water and struggling to breathe). I'd still have to take pills that taste like dirt-caked vomit sprinkled with mint, and I'd still have to taste estradiol (gross in an indescribable sort of way), but that's just a little annoyance (never mind that if I miss it or am late then my emotions run crazy for several days... and this is just to distract me from telling you what it's like to *feel* testosterone *oozing* around inside myself, the hormone that causes me to lose any semblance of sanity... it's necessary that I have access to my pills, moreso than any surgery, environment, or lover).

Being transgender is not a common condition, and the best treatment for it is invisibility via mimicry treatments. If you see a tranny in the office, they're probably just there for their bloodwork and/or hormone treatments, because if you think someone doesn't suffer from just being trans alone: you should try the hormone therapy counter to your gender. It isn't pleasant. But luckily, that's the easiest problem to solve~ And of course transtrenders don't agree with me: they're loony!

Quote:https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.n...ent=safari

As for the "what does being black affect," maybe ask a black person?  It's amazing what you can learn when you just listen.  It's weird that the only people that seem to think it's meaningless are white people, no?

It's a mental disorder in the way that any disease or condition that messes with brain functioning and structure is a mental illness. Yes, technically trannies have physiological differences in their brains that have caused the absolute mindfuck that is dysphoria.... no, I don't think that the colloquialism of calling transsexualism a mental illness is wrong. It occurs so often alongside so many other mental problems... and, strangely, the curing of the hormone fuckery is enough to absolutely gut most of the other problems into far more manageable forms. How would you prefer I refer to the feeling of gender dysphoria? Disease of the brain? Broken brain? Structural fractures in the brain? Mental illness? Disorder of the brain? Catastrophic brain scrambling? I don't think there's a nice way to say it, so why get caught up with how to say it?

Other than culturally? Well, I suppose if you're a black man you're proven to have more success with the ladies, and if you're a black woman then I guess it's proven that not even black men want you. As for your 'whites think it is meaningless' bullshit: I consider myself of biologically Scandinavian descent, something that I consider to be different and distinct from Germanic, Italian, Hispanic, Slavic, or Anglo Saxon heritage... but I have little culture shared with that heritage. My cultural heritage is with Alaskan sourdoughs. My life's experience is in commercial fishing, heavy equipment operating, and in playing stupid video games for days on end.

Being black also isn't meaningless. There are multiple forms of black culture that are overall distinct from their skin colour. But it's just that: cultural. I ask you to tell me the physiological place where being black matters... I already know, and I respect it, and I'm proud to see the advantages and disadvantages with hiring black... but I wanted you to tell me. I still do; their physiology is fascinating and oftentimes excellent in comparison with most populations of whites.

But the thing is: black peoples' current negative social experience is largely self-inflicted and self-perpetuating, and many blacks who reject 'the hood' and the criminal counter-culture that dominates it find themselves successful, and find themselves many opportunities that elude whites of every genetic heritage (if I work in HR, i'm gonna hire the black guy to make my company look good). The 1960s were nearly sixty years ago, and yet we've seen the dissolution of the black nuclear family, the mass adoption of welfare among the population, and a level of abortions that would be no exaggeration to call a black holocaust. I'm Alaskan... there is no racism in benefits of whites built into our systems, it's not like I'm some cracker who grew up racist...

I just find it so strange that you think I, having lived in Texas a very short distance away from Dallas in a college town, haven't spoken with and listened to black people XD It's just so strange to tell someone with their own distinct experiences that you may or may not be aware of... that they should 'just listen' to some social group and they'll learn something. And maybe I would.

But, somehow, I don't think it'd have the positive effect you're seeking. I dislike welfare takers who don't work and get in my face about the wrongs I've done to them because I happened to be born with a certain skin colour. When a culture is based on disrespect and abuse of their fellow man: I find it awful hard to feel positively towards that culture. Independent black women that don't need no man should get themselves hitched to one if they want to avoid the pitfall in parenting that is single motherhood. Welfare is a cancer culture.

---

(February 7, 2017 at 10:54 am)Divinity Wrote: You're a Redpill Liberal.  Which is the most annoying type of liberal.

Hey, it's the first step on the way to sanity Redpilling takes a while, but you can't take it back from someone.

---

(February 7, 2017 at 11:54 am)Whateverist Wrote: I don't think your political label is really what defines you.  You merely have an extraordinary lack of empathy for anyone who isn't just like you.  Self-centered works pretty well.  But I don't think you have a psychological condition.  I'd call it more of a character flaw.  (I bolded the more glaring evidence.)

Damnnn man, I didn't see that at all, but even if it *is* the case: a little selfishness goes a long ways to doing the soul well. I know that I've personally become much happier as I've become more selfish, it means I don't get walked on/fiscally abused so much. If you're looking out for yourself, it's easier to be in a good enough position to look out for others in a responsible and metered manner. Does the world good, really... as without selfish people, we wouldn't have sustainable business models, or a stable economy, or stable and fair relationships built on a level of trust negotiated between two egos.

I'd say being free of self-concern and respect is the far more dangerous character flaw. Especially on one's finances: damn I've done some doozies

I've got no beef with being self-centered or selfish either. It's good to have a center and to serve yourself well. I just think when considering or consorting with other selves, each with their own center, we do better to allow for differences. People vary. A naive expectation of sameness is unjustified and a reflexive tendency to categorize variance as pathological ... sucks. That's where the character flaw part creeps in.

(February 7, 2017 at 1:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I hate it when posts gets concatenated and then don't show up on the "My posts" link with anything new...

(February 7, 2017 at 6:56 am)Violet Wrote: What basis does his being born a filthy white male have on his asking questions, and observing inconsistencies?

"filthy"... nice addition... -.-'

Anyway, it pertains to the bias with which he enters the question and his observations.
I know we're always biased somehow, but it's not a bad idea to try... try real hard to remove biases.
But he doesn't seem to try that...

It's not mine. You can thank SJWs for that one They just love to parody themselves; it's a great time for humor if ya ain't cucked~

Still remains: Is it not an irrelevant counter to a nonexistent problem when someone is asking a question to better their understanding and to expand their perception and they are told to drop their own grounding in understanding and perception entirely to again ask a question to better their understanding and to expand their perception?

He's already doing what you're asking him to do by inquiring about additional information to repair his cognitive dissonance. What does his race have to do with his asking these questions?

poc Wrote:Well then, it seems that the OP is taking one of two extreme positions, instead of being part of what I'd consider to be the reasonable middle-ground.
Again, clearly showing his pre-existing bias.

Being ultimately 'right' or 'wrong' doesn't enter into it when the problem is internal inconsistency. That's not a question of bias: it's a question of framing and compartmentalizing.

poc Wrote:Again, two extreme views are portrayed, where a middle road appears as the desirable.

Refugee status isn't given lightly, and I'm pretty sure there's some sort of quota system in place. This quota ensures that the budget doesn't get out of control.
Homeless people, veterans or otherwise, become homeless due to a variety of factors and the government should, of course, deal with it, but not in such a way that would encourage people to become dependent on the government for housing. There's certainly an allocated budget for these people and although I don't know numbers, I'd think that it's larger than that allocated to refugees.
It's obviously not enough to cover everyone, but the government should also try to fix that problem from the other side: employability of people prior to them becoming unemployed; home security - helping people with some sort of subsidy to prevent homelessness while attempting to find a new job; etc etc etc... Tons of mechanisms and things to cover - it's a damn complex issue, specially in a "liberal economy" setting.

I certainly don't disagree with your assessment, but were it a question of soundness and efficacy then a great number of changes would have to affect his cultural background and understanding of justice before he could accept an economic policy that comes with moderation, and the uneven justice of poverty for self-destructive behaviors.

A functioning nation is hard work, and if there were easy answers then it wouldn't be particularly interesting to discuss and we'd all be sipping the mimosa in a utopia. But there aren't easy answers, and mine would differ from yours on government's role in the lot of it... but again, the OP didn't explicitly seek out which form of governance is the best and how it should operate...

It's still a question of culture within a group, and while it's a culture I do not respect or accept to be beneficial: it is certainly within reason to allow a question of apparent cognitive dissonance between two very difficult to rationalize positions that would seem to conflict with one another to point of irreconcilability.

poc Wrote:Again, a deeper cause exists for such pay disparity in the statistics.
Should the law change to force such disparity to become non-existent?
Or should we find some way to boost ugly people's confidence, thus leading them to better positions?
Should that boost start with a law? or within society at large? (the same society that votes for our leaders)

Should it? I have no idea, I'm not one to argue for pay equity laws. My understanding is that there are innumerable conditions within life for which one person's work may be valued more or less than another's, and I don't seek to repackage 'fairness' as equity, as I do not believe equity is fair.

But if you're already at the basis of equity laws as they refer to finances: why should any one group with disparity NOT see equalization of wages and/or hierarchy within business? Does it make sense that women get equity with men, but the ugly don't with the beautiful, even though theirs is a much greater (and, hehe, actually real) disparity? I don't believe it does. OP seems to be of that mindset. Hence his confusion and seeking a reconciliation.

poc Wrote:Again, it's a society problem. Why do tall people get more respect? What have they done to gain such respect? grew tall? wow talk about winning the genetic lottery!

Respect should be earned on a case-by-case basis.
If the majority of people fail at this, then how should we teach them to learn it and pass it on?

Respect is impossible within a socialist system, I can't tell you how to pass on a judgmental trait within a system that doesn't have any room for that such traits, as I assure you I don't know.

I would like to believe that humans are rather libertarian and self-oriented by nature... but that is at odds with many popular philosophies and economic/governance policies.

Quote:I think he has his head in a biased statistical view of the world, where the actual people are mistreated and discriminated out of high pays, when it may not be the case for the majority of cases.
The majority of those disparities are probably due to other factors that don't show up in statistics.

If you're being mistreated and discriminated out of wages, then I would suggest you take it up with the legal system (if you're american, or in one of those terrible european systems), as that is currently illegal in many forms. Or, if you're a lazy person with no backbone to defend your rights whatsoever: you could always join a union. Of course... often it is that higher pays just come from doing better work and/or being more likable by your employer, so it could be a wash.

Gross injustice is not the case for the majority of cases. For those remaining, there is often legal recognition and protection for the rights of those downtrodden. For the few cases out of that for which there is no recourse possible: a worker in america has the right to quit. In the cases where the worker cannot choose to quit and/or find a better job at which the injustice is no longer applicable: that sucks, and the likelihood that they are an illegal alien working illegally is the majority of these cases.

There's some pretty brutal shit that happens to girls/women on their way up through central america and mexico to the united states... it is genuinely horrible, and every effort should be made to disincentivize that horrific journey. Employers can't abuse workers they don't have (beside the point of the rapes on the way up).

---

(February 8, 2017 at 8:30 am)Whateverist Wrote: I've got no beef with being self-centered or selfish either.  It's good to have a center and to serve yourself well.  I just think when considering or consorting with other selves, each with their own center, we do better to allow for differences.  People vary.  A naive expectation of sameness is unjustified and a reflexive tendency to categorize variance as pathological ... sucks.  That's where the character flaw part creeps in.

I find that a lot of people don't vary very much, and find themselves utterly at home within certain cultures or political groups (or mothers' basements in D&D case).

You would be right regarding the puritanism of a lot of cultures: they very much don't want to let in certain groups. That's a group-think/mob-mentality sort of flaw, in my opinion... and the OP is very much on the road to rejection of that group-think with his discovery that he feels shame to stand alongside his friends for the fact that he can't fathom them.

So, I wouldn't say that the OP has distinguished himself as having any particular character flaw besides incredulity

Good to know. I only read enough of the OP to have the reaction I did. Glad to know it gets better.

Seems to me the OP has just picked a different group of people to groupthink with, but for whatever reason, either hadn't realized or didn't want to realize which group that was...hence asking us, to groupthink a political classification.

Thanks, everyone, for the responses.  This discussion has helped me clarify where I stand.  It would take awhile to respond to each post, so I will just ask one question: what's a "Redpill Liberal"?

Aside from your misconceptions of transgenderism, I'd say you're not a conservative at all.

You sound like a soft-liberal to me.

(February 16, 2017 at 12:38 am)InquiringMind Wrote: Thanks, everyone, for the responses.  This discussion has helped me clarify where I stand.  It would take awhile to respond to each post, so I will just ask one question: what's a "Redpill Liberal"?

You;re going to get alot of jokeposts on this one......so...before that begins...lol:

It's a person who "wakes up " to find that they are -tada...neoconservatives...who are, no matter what anyone tries to tell you, a branch of classical liberalism.

(don't let that label scare you off, the neocons you're thinking of weren't neocons, they were corporist shills, lol - yall should take the term back.)

(February 16, 2017 at 12:45 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(February 16, 2017 at 12:38 am)InquiringMind Wrote: Thanks, everyone, for the responses.  This discussion has helped me clarify where I stand.  It would take awhile to respond to each post, so I will just ask one question: what's a "Redpill Liberal"?

You;re going to get alot of jokeposts on this one......so...before that begins...lol:

It's a person who "wakes up " to find that they are -tada...neoconservatives...who are, no matter what anyone tries to tell you, a branch of classical liberalism.

(don't let that label scare you off, the neocons you're thinking of weren't neocons, they were corporist shills, lol - yall should take the term back.)

I get what the whole RedPill things is in the Men's Rights Movement, but I wasn't sure if it had a special meaning when describing a liberal.