******Official politics thread ******

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you cut off the last part that allowed for equality as things of like kind. even if you assume everyone is of identical mental and physical prowess (and attractiveness), the fact that some have power and some do not belies the idea that we are equal in every capacity.

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's easy to mistake bias for meritocracy, if you're from the south.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you cut off the last part that allowed for equality as things of like kind. even if you assume everyone is of identical mental and physical prowess (and attractiveness), the fact that some have power and some do not belies the idea that we are equal in every capacity.

I'm saying the difference in ability is like less than 10% more often times. Lets say we meet a person who has never worked out vs the strongest person in the world. The strongest person in the world is like 900% stronger. This gap is quite a bit less then the one between average worker compared to CEO....

Let's say rich people got x9 more than the poor people. No one would give a shit.

However, because its like x361 or more, people are starting to rightfully point out: "There's no way that guy is that good at whatever the fuck he does." And what they do most the time is attain power. They are better at raising money or getting votes or something stupid like that.

It's a dumb way to divide resources.

You don't have to go to all people are paid the same to improve the massive unfairness that has taken hold over the most powerful human societies. Especially America. We're like the worst case in the world. We're the least understandable and have the most to lose by not changing.

But the people that control this country literally care more about their bank accounts.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you're mistaking bias for meritocracy

no I am only speaking to the inequality of people. i didn't say they deserved the power, only that they had it. whether it is by bias, merit or random chance, some have it and some do not, therefore people are are not equal even if you assume they all possess equal mental and physical capacities ^.~v

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If the rights of a group are regularly violated at a higher rate than the rest of the population, it is fair to say the group has less rights in practice. Citing individuals is not a refutation of this.

It starts to bring all sorts of questions to the table.

I'm assuming men's rights are being violated the most when it comes to police.

Does that mean women have more rights than men?

Poor white people in trailer parks have their rights violated by police more than rich whites in gated communities.

Is it their white skin that makes the cops violate their rights? There has to be other factors, right?

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by ScaringChildren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It starts to bring all sorts of questions to the table.

I'm assuming men's rights are being violated the most when it comes to police.

Does that mean women have more rights than men?

Poor white people in trailer parks have their rights violated by police more than rich whites in gated communities.

Is it their white skin that makes the cops violate their rights? There has to be other factors, right?

All I'm trying to point out SC is that rights will only ever give you some standing in a discrimination case or maybe (if your lucky) a criminal defense. They never have, nor ever will, produce a society were everyone is treated equally.

Why point this out? Because Rightwingers insist that equal rights are the entire story of equality until they are blue the face. It never even occurs to them to think about the issue any differently then which group has which rights.

[Ahldagor]

The movie Trading Places covered the last few pages of this thread sans Scaring Children stumbling over Wonkie's posts. How many have seen that movie? Its prettt dang good. "All for a dollar."

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm saying the difference in ability is like less than 10% more often times. Lets say we meet a person who has never worked out vs the strongest person in the world. The strongest person in the world is like 900% stronger. This gap is quite a bit less then the one between average worker compared to CEO....

Let's say rich people got x9 more than the poor people. No one would give a shit.

However, because its like x361 or more, people are starting to rightfully point out: "There's no way that guy is that good at whatever the fuck he does." And what they do most the time is attain power. They are better at raising money or getting votes or something stupid like that.

It's a dumb way to divide resources.

You don't have to go to all people are paid the same to improve the massive unfairness that has taken hold over the most powerful human societies. Especially America. We're like the worst case in the world. We're the least understandable and have the most to lose by not changing.

But the people that control this country literally care more their bank accounts.

I'm not sure how much CEOs should be paid and as a general rule I feel there is a strong pragmatic argument for throttling rewards at the top because if you don't you will get consolidation and stagnation.

That said, im not sure you understand the value effective leadership. that guy with 361 followers may well be worth more than 722 leaderless people. An effective leader adds value to his followers and organization.

[Asteria]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

liberals aren't hateful about their racism like conservatives are (when they are racist). liberals are generally compassionately soft bigoted in the form of lower expectations on the issue of race. given the disadvantages face by some groups that may be warranted. not going to cast judgement on the motivation, but I think by embracing that sort of mindset you cripple the populations you are trying to help.

the major difference between the average liberal and average conservative is that comservatives are more likely to invoke stereotypes out of plain ignorance and general lack of exposure whereas liberals are inclined to make light of stereotypes in misguided efforts to make minorities feel a part of the team. this fosters resentment on behalf of minorities who are often genuinely insulted even if they choose not to express it.

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think Conservatives in every society tend to be racist.

This is conservatism in a nutshell:

There are Winners and Losers. Our party is the winners trying to prevent the losers from taking our stuff! Notice how we are winning? Duh, because we're winners. Join us and be a winner! Or, you'll be a loser like them and will deserve it!

You can do can do this with anything. Race, Money, Religion, you name it. And really conservative people tend to have this attitude about everything.

It's an evolutionary strategy to blend in and stay safe.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not sure how much CEOs should be paid and as a general rule I feel there is a strong pragmatic argument for throttling rewards at the top because if you don't you will get consolidation and stagnation.

That said, im not sure you understand the value effective leadership. that guy with 361 followers may well be worth more than 722 leaderless people. An effective leader adds value to his followers and organization.

Something like 1 out of 10 people are natural leaders.

Honestly though. Most CEOs aren't really leaders....they are just in charge. There's a difference. A cop is in charge -- doesn't make that cop your leader.

In fact, leaders usually don't need to threaten people to follow them. They just get followers. Most "Bosses" in the workplace are not leaders. People listen to them so they won't get fired.

For every natural leader there is someone that wants to be a leader but isn't very good at it. These people -- motivated by an inferiority complex -- are some of the worst leaders. Very common type you meet in your typical corporation at all levels of management.

[Asteria]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Edit: Keep in mind conservative is actually a personality type, not just a political party. So you can be a conservative person born into a upper middle class family of "liberals" in San Francisco. You learn how superior your multi-cultural ideology is at a young age -- that you are one of the successful urban winners and not one of those rural Republican losers (still working labor jobs lol!). When it comes time to talk about the Democratic party platform -- it becomes about getting rid of the losers and identifying with the winners....even if there is a D next to your name.

Most early risers that get a lot done by a young age (sprinters according to sociologist lingo) are conservative. And this is regardless of their political party. Our society is highly slanted toward rewarding sprinters atm...even in the Democratic party.

A+ post and a good topic rarely discussed or observed by many Americans whom may or may not subscribe to the Dems vs Repubs and Conservatives vs Liberals cliches.