Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Racism, Poor Minorities, and Spoiling Children by Giving Them Food Racism, Poor Minorities, and Spoiling Children by Giving Them Food

03-26-2015 , 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
I already explained my point to Chez many posts ago
Great value add as always jibs. Put the hood on and run along now.
03-26-2015 , 10:19 AM
Jfc, in my job I often work with/around people on public assistance (mostly white, fwiw) and comparing them to children is not a big stretch. That doesn't mean we should let them go homeless, of course, and I've personally softened my stance on welfare quite a bit thanks to discussions I've had here on 2+2.

Jib and Duffee, in spite of these insufferable trolls, can you see their points that many families, especially many black families, didn't build up the wealth necessary to provide the sort of safety net many of us have? Since we know why that is for quite a few black families, can we cut them a break? I realize in the long run, no amount of charity is a substitute for a good work ethic, but what would cutting them off do besides put them and their kids on the streets?
03-26-2015 , 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Jfc, in my job I often work with/around people on public assistance (mostly white, fwiw) and comparing them to children is not a big stretch.
WTF
03-26-2015 , 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
I don't have to grant that your comparison of black people to spoiled children is accurate to argue that it's ****ing racist.
You're so ridiculous. Stop making up racism to further your political agenda. There are plenty of honest ways to sell taking care of the poor.
03-26-2015 , 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul D
So is giving white businessmen and women business grants racist towards whites?

There's absurdity itt, but it's from Jibs and duffee.

Things like tax returns, business subsidies and grants don't harm people. It's only things like welfare and food stamps that cause harm. Oh and welfare and food stamps don't really harm people living in rural areas, only urban areas, and not everyone in urban areas just the "lazy" one who "lack personal responsibility". Try guessing what they look like.
03-26-2015 , 10:28 AM
Comparing people on public assistance to children is disgusting and says more about the lack of class, lack of values, and poor upbringing of the person making that statement than it does about anyone else.
03-26-2015 , 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Jfc, in my job I often work with/around people on public assistance (mostly white, fwiw) and comparing them to children is not a big stretch. That doesn't mean we should let them go homeless, of course, and I've personally softened my stance on welfare quite a bit thanks to discussions I've had here on 2+2.

Jib and Duffee, in spite of these insufferable trolls, can you see their points that many families, especially many black families, didn't build up the wealth necessary to provide the sort of safety net many of us have? Since we know why that is for quite a few black families, can we cut them a break? I realize in the long run, no amount of charity is a substitute for a good work ethic, but what would cutting them off do besides put them and their kids on the streets?
Someday day we'll figure out how to instill a bootstrappy work ethic in these lazy ****s, but for now can we just throw them a bone?

Seriously FoldN, keep digging that hole for yourself.
03-26-2015 , 10:30 AM
Working poor = children seems like a pretty hot take.
03-26-2015 , 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
Comparing people on public assistance to children is disgusting and says more about the lack of class, lack of values, and poor upbringing of the person making that statement than it does about anyone else.
You got something against children?
03-26-2015 , 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdemaine
Things like tax returns, business subsidies and grants don't harm people. It's only things like welfare and food stamps that cause harm. Oh and welfare and food stamps don't really harm people living in rural areas, only urban areas, and not everyone in urban areas just the "lazy" one who "lack personal responsibility". Try guessing what they look like.
Where would you get the idea anyone gives rural/white people a pass?
03-26-2015 , 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
Someday day we'll figure out how to instill a bootstrappy work ethic in these lazy ****s, but for now can we just throw them a bone?

Seriously FoldN, keep digging that hole for yourself.
Lol, I actually dig holes for a living. What's wrong with digging holes?
03-26-2015 , 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
Comparing people on public assistance to children is disgusting and says more about the lack of class, lack of values, and poor upbringing of the person making that statement than it does about anyone else.
People like you and fly are the only ones that have made this comparison. So I don't know who you are talking to.
03-26-2015 , 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
Working poor = children seems like a pretty hot take.
Nah, paternalistic racism is a pretty stale take. That's been a thing since the colonial era.
03-26-2015 , 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdemaine
Things like tax returns, business subsidies and grants don't harm people. It's only things like welfare and food stamps that cause harm. Oh and welfare and food stamps don't really harm people living in rural areas, only urban areas, and not everyone in urban areas just the "lazy" one who "lack personal responsibility". Try guessing what they look like.
Tax returns are not giving people money, it is taking less money from them.

I have always come out against non tax relief subsidies.
03-26-2015 , 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Jfc, in my job I often work with/around people on public assistance (mostly white, fwiw) and comparing them to children is not a big stretch. That doesn't mean we should let them go homeless, of course, and I've personally softened my stance on welfare quite a bit thanks to discussions I've had here on 2+2.

Jib and Duffee, in spite of these insufferable trolls, can you see their points that many families, especially many black families, didn't build up the wealth necessary to provide the sort of safety net many of us have? Since we know why that is for quite a few black families, can we cut them a break? I realize in the long run, no amount of charity is a substitute for a good work ethic, but what would cutting them off do besides put them and their kids on the streets?
You don't need generational money to do well in life. And I am not against charity, I am against government being in charge of charity and stealing from people to fund it.
03-26-2015 , 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
Working poor = children seems like a pretty hot take.
Lol at thinking anyone is talking about working poor, many of the people I deal with sleep till 10 before cracking their breakfast beer. And they live in the country. Look up Washington County Missouri. It's kind of funny, I've seen maybe three black people here, pretty racist population, yet for some reason they voted for Obama.

Of course it's a hot take, btw. Plenty of people on public assistance aren't lazy, under-educated, drunk, etc., many have just fallen on hard times and need a hand.
03-26-2015 , 10:51 AM
Holy **** - Foldn draws a pretty simple relation between people on assistance and children and he gets **** on. I'm grunching here but I'm certain he said that because most people on assistance expect others to take care of them - in the same way children expect others to take care of them and they don't take personal responsibility.
03-26-2015 , 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
So you believe that it is best to give kids anything they want all throughout their life? I mean, you can't harm someone by giving them free stuff, right?
You brought up children! Not me, not Wookie.
03-26-2015 , 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdemaine
Things like tax returns, business subsidies and grants don't harm people. It's only things like welfare and food stamps that cause harm. Oh and welfare and food stamps don't really harm people living in rural areas, only urban areas, and not everyone in urban areas just the "lazy" one who "lack personal responsibility". Try guessing what they look like.
You missed zee point.
03-26-2015 , 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
You got something against children?
Again, taking them at their word, it's a little weird that Team Be Nice never throws a pity party about insulting **** like this. This dude thinks he's clever! He's not trying to participate in a discussion, he's trying to score dumbass little gotchas.

I mean, FFS, I know between you and Jib we're probably not looking at a huge inventory of history books, but are you guys simultaneously arguing both:

1) It is a vicious smear to say that Jibninjas drew an analogy between blacks and children (INVENTING racism! Inventing!)

BUT ALSO

2) Poor people are pretty much children mentally, so Jibs was right to do that

TO CONCLUDE

3) The government, for the good of poor people, should allow them to starve, unlike parents who provide food and clothing and shelter.

???? Even extending every benefit of the doubt this is gibberish.


Literally every post FoldN has made is very easily explained by imagining someone who was raised by AM talk radio and sincerely does not understand that there are people who weren't. Some of us went to school, kid.

Last edited by FlyWf; 03-26-2015 at 11:04 AM.
03-26-2015 , 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Nah, paternalistic racism is a pretty stale take. That's been a thing since the colonial era.
Yeah, you're right.
03-26-2015 , 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
My point was that it was an absurd statement. Of course giving people free stuff can harm people. That's not to say that giving people money/stuff will always cause harm, but that blanket statements like his shouldn't be left to stand. Reductio ad absurdum.
Just pointing out that Wookies post looked like a blanket statement but wasn't.

I don't think your reductio ad absurdum really works because of the significant difference between adults and kids. You need an obvious example of giving adults free stuff that causes harm, (even then it wont match his non-blanket claim but it would makes your point)

Last edited by chezlaw; 03-26-2015 at 11:12 AM.
03-26-2015 , 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockguy3205
Holy **** - Foldn draws a pretty simple relation between people on assistance and children and he gets **** on. I'm grunching here but I'm certain he said that because most people on assistance expect others to take care of them - in the same way children expect others to take care of them and they don't take personal responsibility.
Shhhh, it gives them something of substance to bitch about.
03-26-2015 , 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
You don't need generational money to do well in life. And I am not against charity, I am against government being in charge of charity and stealing from people to fund it.
Don't you recognize though that in practice what happens is lots and lots of people get stuck in a poverty trap, and many simply don't climb out. While government is often wasteful, do you really think private charities could ever make up the difference?
03-26-2015 , 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibninjas
Tax returns are not giving people money, it is taking less money from them.

I have always come out against non tax relief subsidies.
Money is fungible, and poor people pay taxes. There is no functional difference between the EITC and a tax break.

      
m