the ecological fallacy and identity politics

Bandwagon

Bandwagon

Kolohe
<Silver Donator>
22,747
59,641
Sadre Spinegnawer said:
I disagree with you about what education / culture is capable of, but dude, that was well said. And I think your point is valid, and a real challenge to someone like me. In fact, I have to admit, I actually am far less sanguine about the consequences of *having* a robust social safety net than the costs of not having one. Of how bad the latter is, I think I have a strong case. But what you are arguing, is I have not thought hard enough about the consequences of having the former. I agree. But that is where, I would argue, the can-do spirit needs to kick in. America needs to get over this defeatism. We can solve any problem we want to. The issue ever is, do we want to solve it? As things stand regarding the topic here, nope.
Click to expand...

Please excuse the hillbilly interjection to your smart people talk with big words and stuff, but I just wanted to say one thing.

I was going to post a quick anecdote relating to your post and start it off with-
"Please excuse the hillbilly interjection to your smart people talk with big words and stuff, but I just wanted to say one thing."
But then, I realized I've never heard the word "Sanguine" used in a sentence by anyone other than a stripper's introduction, so I better Google that shit first. Then I changed my anecdote.
 
  • 4Worf
  • 1Like
Reactions: 4 users
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
Sadre Spinegnawer said:
I disagree with you about what education / culture is capable of, but dude, that was well said. And I think your point is valid, and a real challenge to someone like me. In fact, I have to admit, I actually am far less sanguine about the consequences of *having* a robust social safety net than the costs of not having one. Of how bad the latter is, I think I have a strong case. But what you are arguing, is I have not thought hard enough about the consequences of having the former. I agree. But that is where, I would argue, the can-do spirit needs to kick in. America needs to get over this defeatism. We can solve any problem we want to. The issue ever is, do we want to solve it? As things stand regarding the topic here, nope.
Click to expand...

I struggle with the same exact question and have for years. I work in the ghetto and my partners and I over the years have always ended up pondering this question and always end up sighing and shrugging. It seems so impossible.

If you go to the extremes you end up with bad results in both cases. If we have no social net whatsoever, then literally children starve in the streets. But if we do it too much, we create a helpless and often clueless class of dependent mammals who blindly vote for commie-utopia.

Where's the middle ground? What's the right amount of safety net?

I sometimes think about those signs at the zoo. Do not feed the animals. And we all know why. They forget how to live. Well we are also mammals in a zoo, in a sense. Does the same principal apply to us?

But feeding dependent animals is a political expedience in a democracy so it is actually good for some people to keep this system of dependence chugging along. As you say, some people don't even want to fix this problem or even see it as a problem at all.

One thing I feel fairly certain about it that both the most moral and the most pragmatic solution, whatever it is, will be found in the realm of memes and ideas. That's why I say education is the key. If we descend to simple genetic tribalism, we've fucked ourselves. All of us. No race wins in that scenario. I'd like to see a generation raised and taught to not want the dole.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Kaines

Kaines

Potato Supreme
16,881
46,033
AngryGerbil said:
I struggle with the same exact question and have for years. I work in the ghetto and my partners and I over the years have always ended up pondering this question and always end up sighing and shrugging. It seems so impossible.

If you go to the extremes you end up with bad results in both cases. If we have no social net whatsoever, then literally children starve in the streets. But if we do it too much, we create a helpless and often clueless class of dependent mammals who blindly vote for commie-utopia.

Where's the middle ground? What's the right amount of safety net?

I sometimes think about those signs at the zoo. Do not feed the animals. And we all know why. They forget how to live. Well we are also mammals in a zoo, in a sense. Does the same principal apply to us?

But feeding dependent animals is a political expedience in a democracy so it is actually good for some people to keep this system of dependence chugging along. As you say, some people don't even want to fix this problem or even see it as a problem at all.

One thing I feel fairly certain about it that both the most moral and the most pragmatic solution, whatever it is, will be found in the realm of memes and ideas. That's why I say education is the key. If we descend to simple genetic tribalism, we've fucked ourselves. All of us. No race wins in that scenario. I'd like to see a generation raised and taught to not want the dole.
Click to expand...

The "right" amount of social safety net to me is that which catches people who have a temporary crisis of economy in their lives (loss of job, severe illness, etc) but which does not provide a permanent lifestyle.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,437
33,655
Kaines said:
The "right" amount of social safety net to me is that which catches people who have a temporary crisis of economy in their lives (loss of job, severe illness, etc) but which does not provide a permanent lifestyle.
Click to expand...

You just want disabled people to die
 
  • 2Worf
Reactions: 1 users
mkopec

mkopec

<Gold Donor>
25,398
37,481
Here is what I think about safety nets...

They should definitely exist. There is people that truly need them. Like the disabled, those that lost work and need a bridge to the next job, single mothers need help as well, whether it be in the form of child care allowance so she can work or school, or simply helping her out with the necessities of raising a child on her own. People that truly get hurt on the job and need short term or longer term disability so they can get well and go back to work.

But we now have some families that have been on assistance for several generations. Able bodied people that can do all sorts of work, but choose not to because they rather get what they get from the government. And this cannot persist. We have single mothers which pop out more kids for more money, or simply lacking the personal responsibility not to have more kids because of her financial situation. We have a welfare system that rewards single mothers opposed to a stable family. A welfare system that tells the single mother that being single with child is more productive in receiving benefits than it is to be in a stable marriage.

There needs to be systems in place, maybe even harsh ones that force these able body people back to work. Systems that reinforce personal responsibility. Im definitely not an expert in this shit, but anyone can see how the current systems basically fail people. I dont know what the answer is but it sure isnt to expand these systems to broader swaths of the population without a total systemic overhaul.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Sentagur

Sentagur

Low and to the left
<Silver Donator>
3,825
7,937
mkopec said:
Here is what I think about safety nets...

They should definitely exist. There is people that truly need them. Like the disabled, those that lost work and need a bridge to the next job, single mothers need help as well, whether it be in the form of child care allowance so she can work or school, or simply helping her out with the necessities of raising a child on her own. People that truly get hurt on the job and need short term or longer term disability so they can get well and go back to work.

But we now have some families that have been on assistance for several generations. Able bodied people that can do all sorts of work, but choose not to because they rather get what they get from the government. And this cannot persist. We have single mothers which pop out more kids for more money, or simply lacking the personal responsibility not to have more kids because of her financial situation. We have a welfare system that rewards single mothers opposed to a stable family. A welfare system that tells the single mother that being single with child is more productive in receiving benefits than it is to be in a stable marriage.

There needs to be systems in place, maybe even harsh ones that force these able body people back to work. Systems that reinforce personal responsibility. Im definitely not an expert in this shit, but anyone can see how the current systems basically fail people. I dont know what the answer is but it sure isnt to expand these systems to broader swaths of the population without a total systemic overhaul.
Click to expand...

The problem is that any system you the design will be gamed by people eventually. There is no way to make it bullet proof because we are smart apes and we like to game any system we encounter.
If you put measures to catch those people they eat up some of the funding and will not be perfect either.
The reality is this. If you dont want people starving in the streets you have to put a safety net in place and any net you put up will have assholes trying to abuse it inevitably.
 
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 user
Kaines

Kaines

Potato Supreme
16,881
46,033
Sentagur said:
The problem is that any system you the design will be gamed by people eventually. There is no way to make it bullet proof because we are smart apes and we like to game any system we encounter.
If you put measures to catch those people they eat up some of the funding and will not be perfect either.
The reality is this. If you dont want people starving in the streets you have to put a safety net in place and any net you put up will have assholes trying to abuse it inevitably.
Click to expand...

That is true for any governmental or private system that the public has access to. The problem isn't spending time and resources to catch and punish those that would abuse the system. The problem is how much of the system do you want to be used that isn't considered "abuse" but is still overkill for what you want the system to do.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,441
2,223
Yeah, the easy solution is to just give them money and if someone points out how much they are suffering, call that person a racist. Not to get all Ayn Rand-y but it seems clear to me that a great way to destroy a person is to put a roof over their head, give them just enough money to get by, and don't ask anything in return. For some reason people, especially men, are just lost without a sense of purpose and self reliance and the result is obvious anywhere it's done, from refugee camps to inner city ghettos, to indian reservations. People receiving federal assistance and living horrible lives full of crime, mental illness, and substance abuse.
 
  • 3Solidarity
  • 2Like
Reactions: 4 users
K

k^M

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,701
1,960
What would be the repercussion of setting a max child tax care credit/assistance to 2 kids? Seems like a simple way to fix that problem of free money from the government in exchange for producing questionably worthwhile offspring.
 
yerm

yerm

Golden Baronet of the Realm
5,999
15,471
BrutulTM said:
Yeah, the easy solution is to just give them money and if someone points out how much they are suffering, call that person a racist. Not to get all Ayn Rand-y but it seems clear to me that a great way to destroy a person is to put a roof over their head, give them just enough money to get by, and don't ask anything in return. For some reason people, especially men, are just lost without a sense of purpose and self reliance and the result is obvious anywhere it's done, from refugee camps to inner city ghettos, to indian reservations. People receiving federal assistance and living horrible lives full of crime, mental illness, and substance abuse.
Click to expand...

It is basic human nature. Satisfaction comes from achievement. You can see it even in basic things like cheat codes or hacking ruining a video game, close sports games being the most exciting, or sexual attraction from playing hard to get.

One of the awful ironies of welfare is that the people on it and satisfied are ones who should not be on it - they game the system and in effect feel satiafaction for "achieving" that welfare state. The unemployed job seeker who hates being seen in line for a check and feeling emasculated about the whole thing, preferring to earn their way? This is exactly who we feel should get it!

Early socialism (without marxist garbage) put forward by types like Bismarck were meant to be a boon to the economy. Workers who are sick or hurt should stay home, kids should not be held down trying to overly support the elderly, broad education improves society, etc.

All of the problems manifest the moment you shift the view from government facilitating individual achievement to government responsible for it.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 users
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
Sentagur said:
If you dont want people starving in the streets you have to put a safety net in place and any net you put up will have assholes trying to abuse it inevitably.
Click to expand...

It's true. And this is where I can only shrug. It isn't obvious what the solution to this reality is.
 
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
BrutulTM said:
Yeah, the easy solution is to just give them money and if someone points out how much they are suffering, call that person a racist. Not to get all Ayn Rand-y but it seems clear to me that a great way to destroy a person is to put a roof over their head, give them just enough money to get by, and don't ask anything in return. For some reason people, especially men, are just lost without a sense of purpose and self reliance and the result is obvious anywhere it's done, from refugee camps to inner city ghettos, to indian reservations. People receiving federal assistance and living horrible lives full of crime, mental illness, and substance abuse.
Click to expand...

On a psychological and philosophical level, I think men who don't work are invalidating their prime directive. Their major biological imperative. Men are the ones who are supposed to carry the heavy rocks and fight the battles. That's what we're here for. We work to spray our gametes all over creation when we are younger, as we push against the biology of female selection. And then we work for the products of our gamete-game as we push against objective reality in order to extract or acquire resources from our surrounding nature to then give to our gamete-partners and the little lives we created with them.

An able bodied man on the dole is an insult to civilization and humanity.

I honestly believe 'free money' is a force of destruction, not help. Both the concept of free money, and the actual thing itself. That is to say, it is 'bad' to both win the lottery and to even want to win it in the first place. That's why I say we should teach people the destructive power of 'the dole' and convince them that they don't want it, even it is was right in front of them.

Obviously that's easier said than done, but regardless of its ease, it still appears to be the case that such a psychology would probably help.
 
maskedmelon

maskedmelon

Orator of Superfluous Nothings
1,893
2,952
The most tragic revelation I have had is coming to understand that the most moral choice is also the most pragmatic. At face value for one who likes to think, it ought appear as a glorious reconciliation between the lunacy of one's heart and the certainty of one's mind. Reason is callous though, numb to the nature of the truths it delivers.

The congruence of course depends upon our moral code and the principles by which we determine right and wrong. Indeed those principles vary widely by culture, but if we were to distill them all into a single guiding premise of what one ought do, it would be to minimize suffering.

One might argue that maximizing utility is morally superior to minimizing suffering, but the two are indistinguishable for one who suffers and the former is less tangible than the latter given that one must act before it is recognized. While suffering may be easily identified and squashed because it exists, increased utility cannot even be recognized until it has been created.

In understanding the most fundamental principle of morality as minimization of suffering, reason delivers some extraordinarily painful conclusions.

Interestingly, man struggles to find purpose in the absence of hardship.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sadre Spinegnawer

Sadre Spinegnawer

<Banned>
4,107
4,043
AngryGerbil said:
I struggle with the same exact question and have for years. I work in the ghetto and my partners and I over the years have always ended up pondering this question and always end up sighing and shrugging. It seems so impossible.

If you go to the extremes you end up with bad results in both cases. If we have no social net whatsoever, then literally children starve in the streets. But if we do it too much, we create a helpless and often clueless class of dependent mammals who blindly vote for commie-utopia.

Where's the middle ground? What's the right amount of safety net?

I sometimes think about those signs at the zoo. Do not feed the animals. And we all know why. They forget how to live. Well we are also mammals in a zoo, in a sense. Does the same principal apply to us?

But feeding dependent animals is a political expedience in a democracy so it is actually good for some people to keep this system of dependence chugging along. As you say, some people don't even want to fix this problem or even see it as a problem at all.

One thing I feel fairly certain about it that both the most moral and the most pragmatic solution, whatever it is, will be found in the realm of memes and ideas. That's why I say education is the key. If we descend to simple genetic tribalism, we've fucked ourselves. All of us. No race wins in that scenario. I'd like to see a generation raised and taught to not want the dole.
Click to expand...


This is the policy question we need to be talking about, but politicians are afraid to let us have it.

My take is, we already have constructed many things which wretched countries would say OMG THANK YOU. Like consider the Hoover Dam. How much does it bring to how many people? And the Hoover Dam, I suggest, is "smart government." The returns on that investment are inestimable.

We have to figure out how to construct a *useful* safety net would be my reply here. Sound good?

edit: I think it should be basic that people should be able to retire at 65 if they wish. At the age of 65, every American should be given a modest RV and a free pass to all national parks.
 
Last edited:
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,437
33,655
I think one of the largest problems has actually been the proliferation of better medical care.

Medical care now still doesn't actually solve the issues, for the most part we are treating symptoms. I think like many of society's ills, if we can't treat the cause, spending endless resources to treat the symptoms only grows the malignant elements.

If people actually died on time, we wouldn't have this ridiculous notion of working for fifty years. We wouldn't have 30 year retirements.

If people couldn't get free treatment for diabetes, society would adapt and stop gorging itself as much and parents would give a shit.

If you couldn't survive most gunshots gang warfare would end quicker.

So it's really AGs fault.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Solidarity
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users
You must log in or register to reply here.