Pin the Tale on the Donkey: Democrats' Horrible Racist Past | Bill Whittle

[the_std]

Seriously, if you guys think I'm the only one committing logical fallacies in this thread, I have a cheap bridge to sell you.

Okiedoke. Please point out the fallacies we're using so that we can make better arguments and further articulate the point we're trying to make.

Oh wait! We're not using fallacies, we're attacking your incredibly-poorly chosen arguments! But instead of defending them through explanations and sources and facts, it's easier for you to say that we're just being mean.

Are you enjoying this? Is this fun for you? Because I can't imagine why you keep coming back to this thread. Everything you're saying gets torn apart, you aren't "making anyone think", as you so claim. You're rehashing tired, discredited arguments that no one here is gonna buy because we aren't drinking Republican kool-aid. We aren't going to take you seriously unless your arguments become cohesive and way, way less biased.

[mjr]

I have no idea where the idea that if one were to make the government not give money, everyone would suddenly step in to 'Fill the void.'

Show me where I said that. Wait, you can't. Because I didn't. I said it should START locally.

'Issue' is a funny word to use to refer to FUCKING PEOPLE

Again, a mischaracterization of what I said. And you know it. When I refer to "the issue", I'm not speaking of the people, like you're trying to make it appear. When I said you can't just throw money at the issue, what I mean is that there actually need to be sound plans in place to utilize the money in a non-wasteful manner, that address things like hunger, poverty, etc.

Is that better?

[mjr]

No, it's okay, guys, I have a black friend!

Nice thinly-veiled insult. Of course, that's a classic fall-back now that YOU don't have an actual response to what I said. Accuse me of racism. Because of course accusing someone of being racist is a go-to when you want someone to back down.

Even though I can tell you with 100% certainty that I'm not racist. Whether you believe that or not is up to you (you likely don't -- and I honestly don't care). On top of that, you don't even know my ethnicity.

[mjr]

Are you saying that poor/black people don't deserve help from the government because they aren't trying hard enough to not be poor?

Well, my answer to this query isn't going to make a lick of difference to you, since you've obviously made up your mind as to what I think anyway (and apparently think you can read my mind), but no. And I didn't say that. You can't prove I did, either.

Seriously, does anyone LIKE being poor and oppressed and downtrodden? Do you think black people are happy being objectified and tossed aside? It has absolutely nothing to do with "not wanting to admit there's an issue", and everything to do with the fact that society has actively and passively kept huge groups of people from moving up in the world. There is no fucking twelve step program for that, and to suggest so is saying that this is their own fault. Which is a tired old GOP talking point (if they wanted to badly enough, they'd just stop being poor!) and it's purely, utterly HORSESHIT.

Another complete mischaracterization of what I said, but whatever.

[mjr]

Hi. I'm on Medicaid (well, technically just my son is) and we were on food stamps for a while. We would have been on the streets or at least declaring bankruptcy without the help.

Hi. I'm glad Medicaid worked out for you. I'm glad that the EBT system worked out for you, too. That's two programs. And those two could be re-vamped, too, honestly.

Oh, and that was with my working full-time time and my husband working near full-time. Although the food stamps were when he was unemployed.

I'm seriously glad that worked out for you. I genuinely am.

When you're talking about paying for things, it typically is.

My point here (again) is that there's really no sound plan for the money sometimes.

It's kinda like that old saw where the kid shoots the side of the barn, then draws the targets around them later. Everybody else thinks he got a bullseye, but he really didn't.

It's cheaper to just give folks money and let them do their own shopping as they need food.

True, it is cheaper. That doesn't mean it's the optimum way to do it.

Sure, but it's been proven that local community help doesn't have the resources consistently enough to help everyone in their area because, unfortunately, people are cheap bastards or there just isn't the income distribution to help.

From a money standpoint, this may be true. But mentoring programs could be put together for little or no money. There are people at my local library who teach kids to play chess. Chess promotes strategic and critical thinking.

There are also programs there that emphasize reading, and there are classes that teach people different games.

Many of those are recreational, but that could probably easily and inexpensively be expanded to include other things like computer usage, word processing, auto mechanical work, and so forth through VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS.

But apparently I'm the only one who's thought of that.

[mjr]

Okiedoke. Please point out the fallacies we're using so that we can make better arguments and further articulate the point we're trying to make.

False Dichotomy and Texas Sharpshooter, just to name a couple.

We aren't going to take you seriously unless your arguments become cohesive and way, way less biased.

Oh, you mean in Liberal lockstep?

And if you aren't going to take it seriously, why are you still commenting? Checkmate.

[mjr]

I'm legitimately afraid that this is what mjr actually believes and he is not just farking with us. >.>

Alright, let's do things your way.

Let's enact legislation that confiscates everyone's wealth, and makes every job pay $250K a year. That way the CEO of Wal-Mart and the door greeter make the same money.

Then, let's check back in five years and see how everyone's doing.

Hey, that's only fair, right? I mean, wealth redistribution, say goodbye to income inequality, and it "levels" the playing field, does it not?

That way, we're all considered rich. Except we're not.

But you don't like that plan, do you? It's "ridiculous", right? But it fixes things, and it's Liberal, so you should be for it.

[Kheldarson]

From a money standpoint, this may be true. But mentoring programs could be put together for little or no money. There are people at my local library who teach kids to play chess. Chess promotes strategic and critical thinking.

There are also programs there that emphasize reading, and there are classes that teach people different games.

Many of those are recreational, but that could probably easily and inexpensively be expanded to include other things like computer usage, word processing, auto mechanical work, and so forth through VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS.

And these help, how? Is critical thinking going to help feed a person? Get the medical help? Even get them a job? Because I've got two degrees and can't find a job that pays enough on its own because they don't exist in bulk anymore. Heck, my current company just restructured to basically eliminate the middle management, so how are my critical thinking skills supposed to help me get into management when I can't get the base experience?

Simple fact is that unless you are well connected or incredibly lucky, getting a single sustaining job is hard. But we want to make getting help even harder or even dependent on others' good will? Good will that tends to be dependent on how people view your need status rather than what it actually is? Sounds like an amazing plan.

[KabeRinnaul]

But you don't like that plan, do you? It's "ridiculous", right? But it fixes things, and it's Liberal, so you should be for it.

No one supports that plan because it's a ridiculous straw man argument.

No one is demanding pure communism here. This isn't about ensuring that everyone has perfectly equal reward. It's that opportunity favors the already-advantaged, a struggling middle class weakens the entire economy, and helping the most disadvantaged members of our society in the most effective manner is good for society as a whole.

The United States of America shouldn't let its citizens starve, die of preventable disease, or sleep in the street just because we refuse to let go of the fucking red scare.

[mjr]

And these help, how?

By providing the person the opportunity to, either free or inexpensively, learn a skill they may not have. When a person learns a new skill, their confidence goes up. Improved confidence is good for everyone, regardless of station.

Is critical thinking going to help feed a person? Get the medical help? Even get them a job? Because I've got two degrees and can't find a job that pays enough on its own because they don't exist in bulk anymore.

You're looking at it in somewhat of a vacuum. This is, again, why I emphasize "LOCALLY". If I teach someone a new skill (say, basic auto mechanics), that may lead them to explore MORE, while they're getting other assistance. Their confidence builds, they explore more skills, and they eventually rise out of the situation that they're in. Doesn't that sound logical?

Simple question with probably a complex answer: Just how much should we expect the government to provide for and support us? Everything? All aspects?

Do you expect the gov't to just GIVE you a job? I'd hope not.

Simple fact is that unless you are well connected or incredibly lucky, getting a single sustaining job is hard.

That's debatable.

But we want to make getting help even harder or even dependent on others' good will? Good will that tends to be dependent on how people view your need status rather than what it actually is? Sounds like an amazing plan.

It's not a bad plan, when viewed correctly. Heck, even in Biblical times, the miracles of Jesus usually required some sort of action by others (ordinary citizens, not gov't) or the person on whom the miracle was being performed. The blind man and Lazarus come to mind.

I'm not saying eliminate programs completely. I'm just saying I think there's a better way that's not being promoted for political reasons.

[Hyena Dandy]

Nice thinly-veiled insult. Of course, that's a classic fall-back now that YOU don't have an actual response to what I said. Accuse me of racism.

Then you missed the point. The point is that a person can use racist rhetoric, regardless of their ethnicity, and "but a black guy said it!" isn't a defense.

Again, a mischaracterization of what I said. And you know it. When I refer to "the issue", I'm not speaking of the people, like you're trying to make it appear. When I said you can't just throw money at the issue, what I mean is that there actually need to be sound plans in place to utilize the money in a non-wasteful manner, that address things like hunger, poverty, etc.

The issue is not 'Hunger' and 'Poverty.' The issue is people IN hunger and poverty. So when you refer to it as 'Throwing money at the issue,' yes, you ARE referring to people.

Even though I can tell you with 100% certainty that I'm not racist.

You don't need to yourself be racist to support a racist idea.

[Kara_CS]

Let's see...of the social programs that could benefit the aforementioned groups, how many actually HAVE actually helped them? In what way? Keep them dependent on the government, so Democrats stay in charge longer?

Wow. Just wow. I admit I am somewhat morbidly impressed here. I mention programs to help individual communities, which could literally be any sort of community enhancement programs, and you immediately went for "socialism is bad because Conservative talking heads told me it is."

Beneficial social community programs can exist in many forms. Something as simple as community outreach programs, to raising taxes to fund public school systems and improving outdated schools, job fairs and training, leaving the ivory towers of the statehouse to see what could use some fixing as far as roadwork and what a city could do to temporarily hire the manpower needed to take on those repairs,, increasing the funding for additional police and fire department staffing and response times by reducing excess spending in larger communities not in desperate need, just to name a few. There are many ways to extend an olive branch to the lower income, less white neighborhoods that involve more investments in time than money, but these, too, are ignored by the politicians who infiltrated the Republican party in order to stand on the side of Lincoln and civil rights to win votes and then doing nothing for the betterment of the minority voters who trusted them. These things could be and should be done at the local level, through city, state, and county committees and legislatures.

But no, you took that baton and charged blindly, and proudly full-steam ahead into "socialism is bad, government assistance is a form of control, poor (black) people are lazy, and the filthy liberals want to take all the money from the wealthy so the kid working the drive-thru makes the same as the CEO." Which are all typical right-wing talking points about how liberals are idiots (and conveniently gets everyone off track from the main argument and thus avoids having to provide any Republican alternative solutions to the issue they brought up in the first place). Oh, and toss around examples such as "false dichotomy" and "Texas sharpshooter" at random, because they're likely the first two terms to come up if you google "logical fallacy." But do not, whatever you do, try to illustrate your points, just stay on the defensive offense until everyone realizes that liberals are dumb and the phantom, unspecified conservative solutions are the answer to everything.

I'm not even sure how the last couple pages in this thread even happened. I've read them a few times now, and there's no logical connection between what we were talking about the other day to what we're talking about now. Except for the fact that I said "social programs," and triggered some type of automatic, hind-brain, Fox News social commentary about how the poor's problems aren't the government's problem and if people just tried harder instead of expecting handouts, well, it wouldn't fix anything but they should stop bitching about it anyway. Which I think says a lot more about the OP's personal bias than anything, especially in a case of someone derailing their own thread that almost had a point to go on such a worn-out tirade.

And since this conversation has been torpedoed by the ship's very captain, I am well and truly done here. I'm off to hug trees, grab a nonfat soy latte, and establish a communist utopia or something.

[Gravekeeper]

Not racist, but #1 with racists.

[HYHYBT]

When I said you can't just throw money at the issue, what I mean is that there actually need to be sound plans in place to utilize the money in a non-wasteful manner, that address things like hunger, poverty, etc.

That's not plausible. Because if that were really what you'd meant, you would have known there was no need to say it, because nobody anywhere is arguing that the solution to problems is to just throw money around willy nilly with no consideration for whether a particular use would be helpful.

I'm just saying I think there's a better way that's not being promoted for political reasons.

If you have one, put it forth so we can discuss it. But it must be something REAL, as in concrete and with a reasonable level of detail of how you would get it to work. None of this relying on people to magically change human nature, expecting localities that don't have enough to give to come up with magic programs that get people jobs that provide a living wage just by learning word processing or some such garbage.

[Gravekeeper]

Okay guys, that's enough. Stop feeding him.