What Do You Call a Fiscal Progressive and a Social Conservative?

[pocaracas]

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

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...

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.

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.

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)

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?

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.