5 ms·

If only the working poor were "high-risk no-income". That would indicate some free time to get into trouble! That would mean they could simply find a job instea

by duaneb 10y ago

If only the working poor were "high-risk no-income". That would indicate some free time to get into trouble! That would mean they could simply find a job instead of stretching their current ones. This is a classist dogwhistle labeling the poor as lazy, violent people.

wyager 10y ago
I have lived near section 8 housing in Texas. They are not, generally speaking, working. It's also not the kind of place you want to be near at night. "The poor" is not the same as "people who live in public housing". There are a lot of dirt-poor rural areas that are very safe (and generally more employable).
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Why are you trying to shame people for making claims that are fundamentally correct? The poor are lazy: http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication... Table 3 on page 21. They are also disproportionately violent: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf I have no data on section 8 recipients in particular; do you?
- duaneb 10y ago
  Neither source remotely supports your claims. Laziness is not qualitative. I think people who work desk jobs are lazy; I imagine you believe people on disability to be lazy. The thing you linked doesn't even contain the word. You have to use your words if you want to communicate. The rich would be violent, too, if they were threatened by losing their wealth. Being able to reject violence wholesale is privileged. Let's just agree never to interact; I think we'll both be happier.
  - wyager 10y ago
    > Being able to reject violence wholesale is privileged. Ah, so not beating your wife, as discussed in the paper, is privileged? It's OK for poor people to do it?
    - duaneb 10y ago
      > Ah, so not beating your wife, as discussed in the paper, is privileged? Avoiding conviction certainly is.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    You used the word "lazy" with regard to people who were "no-income". I showed that, in fact, most of the poor are "no-income". Lets consider what your comment might mean under that interpretation: If only the working poor were "high-risk desk job workers". That would indicate some free time to get into trouble! That would mean they could simply find a job instead of stretching their current ones. That wouldn't really make much sense. Similarly, I showed the poor are violent. That's what your comment was referring to: ...labeling the poor as desk job working, violent people. I'm glad we could come to agreement that the poor are predominantly high-risk no-income people who are also disproportionately violent.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      What is the rhetorical purpose of lines like these? I'm glad we could come to agreement that the poor are predominantly high-risk no-income people who are also disproportionately violent I've noticed you employ this assumptive-close rhetoric a lot, but always in such an outlandish fashion (in this case, for instance, coming within epsilon of saying "I'm glad we agree the poor are bad people") that I have to stop and wonder whether your point is that the argument you've been pursuing is ludicrous, and you're pushing it as an exercise in showing how ludicrous this kind of logic can be. In a sales conversation, you lead a prospect gradually to the point where the assumptive close feels natural, and the counterparty is meant to feel like they've convinced themselves. But your assumptive closes are so clumsy and obvious it's like you're trying to hit people over the head with them. You're not stupid, so I assume there's some kind of intriguing rhetorical strategy here I'm just not picking up on.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I'm curious what you find ludicrous about the argument. I claim the poor are predominantly no-income people and disproportionately violent. The violence includes all sorts of violence with no economic motive, e.g. intimate partner violence. The Census and BJS support this claim. Do you disagree? The rhetorical strategy is very simple: pointing out that duaneb did not disagree with me on this. He just clumsily redefined his terms so as to avoid the facts I presented - e.g. redefining lazy to mean "desk job" rather than "no job" in a manner that renders his parent comment nonsensical. Consider the possibility that I'm not selling duaneb anything; the target of my comments might instead be the moderate people persuaded by facts.

by duaneb 10y ago

wyager 10y ago

I have lived near section 8 housing in Texas. They are not, generally speaking, working. It's also not the kind of place you want to be near at night. "The poor" is not the same as "people who live in public housing". There are a lot of dirt-poor rural areas that are very safe (and generally more employable).

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Why are you trying to shame people for making claims that are fundamentally correct? The poor are lazy: http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication... Table 3 on page 21. They are also disproportionately violent: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf I have no data on section 8 recipients in particular; do you?

duaneb 10y ago
Neither source remotely supports your claims. Laziness is not qualitative. I think people who work desk jobs are lazy; I imagine you believe people on disability to be lazy. The thing you linked doesn't even contain the word. You have to use your words if you want to communicate. The rich would be violent, too, if they were threatened by losing their wealth. Being able to reject violence wholesale is privileged. Let's just agree never to interact; I think we'll both be happier.
- wyager 10y ago
  > Being able to reject violence wholesale is privileged. Ah, so not beating your wife, as discussed in the paper, is privileged? It's OK for poor people to do it?
  - duaneb 10y ago
    > Ah, so not beating your wife, as discussed in the paper, is privileged? Avoiding conviction certainly is.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  You used the word "lazy" with regard to people who were "no-income". I showed that, in fact, most of the poor are "no-income". Lets consider what your comment might mean under that interpretation: If only the working poor were "high-risk desk job workers". That would indicate some free time to get into trouble! That would mean they could simply find a job instead of stretching their current ones. That wouldn't really make much sense. Similarly, I showed the poor are violent. That's what your comment was referring to: ...labeling the poor as desk job working, violent people. I'm glad we could come to agreement that the poor are predominantly high-risk no-income people who are also disproportionately violent.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    What is the rhetorical purpose of lines like these? I'm glad we could come to agreement that the poor are predominantly high-risk no-income people who are also disproportionately violent I've noticed you employ this assumptive-close rhetoric a lot, but always in such an outlandish fashion (in this case, for instance, coming within epsilon of saying "I'm glad we agree the poor are bad people") that I have to stop and wonder whether your point is that the argument you've been pursuing is ludicrous, and you're pushing it as an exercise in showing how ludicrous this kind of logic can be. In a sales conversation, you lead a prospect gradually to the point where the assumptive close feels natural, and the counterparty is meant to feel like they've convinced themselves. But your assumptive closes are so clumsy and obvious it's like you're trying to hit people over the head with them. You're not stupid, so I assume there's some kind of intriguing rhetorical strategy here I'm just not picking up on.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I'm curious what you find ludicrous about the argument. I claim the poor are predominantly no-income people and disproportionately violent. The violence includes all sorts of violence with no economic motive, e.g. intimate partner violence. The Census and BJS support this claim. Do you disagree? The rhetorical strategy is very simple: pointing out that duaneb did not disagree with me on this. He just clumsily redefined his terms so as to avoid the facts I presented - e.g. redefining lazy to mean "desk job" rather than "no job" in a manner that renders his parent comment nonsensical. Consider the possibility that I'm not selling duaneb anything; the target of my comments might instead be the moderate people persuaded by facts.