8 ms·

This is such a popular sentiment lately, and I really have no idea where it comes from. The world is getting better by basically any objective metric at an incr

by darawk 7y ago

This is such a popular sentiment lately, and I really have no idea where it comes from. The world is getting better by basically any objective metric at an incredible pace. Far fewer people are starving than at any time in history, and even that number only looks to be shrinking as we gaze out into the immediate future. There are problems to be sure. But if your goal is eliminating poverty...well..we're already doing that quite rapidly. It seems more like this sentiment comes from envy of the super-rich, rather than compassion for the extremely poor. And that I understand, but it doesn't seem to me to be a very good reason to reshape civilization.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Look deeper. I may at times experience envy for the super rich, but that is not what motivates me. What motivates me is the obvious unfairness of a system where wealth determines your influence and where most everything in our world is controlled by a small percentage of the people. That leads to all kinds of problems in society and that’s what motivates me. The poor deserve more than a Walmart full of stuff. They deserve democratic representation in our society.
- darawk 7y ago
  They literally have democratic representation, though. They vote. They exercise that power all the time.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    That's a ridiculously narrow view of what democratic representation means. Is it still democratic representation when some people are barred from voting for no good reason? Subjected to undue burdens or intimidation? Is it still democratic representation when some people's votes count for less, either because of gerrymandering or because of extra seats in the senate and electoral college for thinly populated states? Is it still democratic representation when we can't verify that our voting systems are secure, but can verify that one party is doing everything they can to block improvement? How bad do these distortions have to get before we conclude that we're no more "democratic" than the old USSR? They had elections too, so it's all good, right?
    - darawk 7y ago
      > That's a ridiculously narrow view of what democratic representation means I don't think the literal meaning of democracy is a "ridiculous narrow representation of democracy". We may agree that the right to vote does not, on its own, in all cases, entirely embody all aspects of the democratic ideal. But it is certainly not a "ridiculously narrow interpretation". > Is it still democratic representation when some people are barred from voting for no good reason? Subjected to undue burdens or intimidation? I'd say it is still democracy, but imperfectly implemented. The overwhelming majority of Americans are able to vote. Should it be better? Of course. But the idea that the poor in aggregate are unrepresented politically is ludicrous. > How bad do these distortions have to get before we conclude that we're no more "democratic" than the old USSR? They had elections too, so it's all good, right? We're a lot more democratic than the USSR. To suggest otherwise is the height of privileged conceit. Modern Russia is more democratic than the USSR, and if you think our democracy is equivalent to theirs, take a trip over there and try running against Putin in the next election. See how that works out for you.
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    No. False. Totally wrong. They vote every couple of years for candidates that are also accepting millions in donations from wealthy donors. No public airtime is provided so they only hear about candidates who can raise money. They go to their workplace where the owners make all the decisions. Collectively most decisions in our economy are made by the capital owners or the political candidates who could raise the most funds from capital owners. Regular non capital owning people in America have significantly less political power than those with money. That is not democratic representation.
    - darawk 7y ago
      > They vote every couple of years for candidates Aka the definition of democracy, yes. > that are also accepting millions in donations from wealthy donors. No public airtime is provided so they only hear about candidates who can raise money. Candidates that the wealthy don't like raise money all the time, though. Most rich people didn't like Trump. They certainly don't like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. If your assertion is that money in politics systematically disenfranchises the poor, then you may want to re-examine the current democratic field. > They go to their workplace where the owners make all the decisions. Collectively most decisions in our economy are made by the capital owners or the political candidates who could raise the most funds from capital owners. Except that they choose to go to those workplaces. They may choose to do whatever they wish with their own time and labor.
      - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
        > Except that they choose to go to those workplaces. They may choose to do whatever they wish with their own time and labor. I’m reminded of the factory workers in other countries whose indigenous land was stolen by the government so they could no longer farm. The one fertile farming land land was used to build factories. And the indigenes people, who no longer had any land to farm on, finally “chose” to work in the factory. I disagree with you strongly that voting every few years is the definition of democracy if you mean to say it is the entire definition of democracy. There’s been thousands of years of history and philosophy as it relates to democracy and voting every few years is far from the only idea people have had about it. In particular voting for representatives is participation in a representative democracy, which is one kind of democracy. There are others. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_assemblies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_assemblies
LeonB 7y ago
> The world is getting better by basically any objective metric at an incredible pace. I think “basically any” is overselling it (particularly when combined with “incredible pace”) Climate change is hard to overlook, for example. Income inequality is rising. That leads to more of the kind of statements you’re objecting to.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Thank you. The potential destruction of the majority of living species on earth is hardly an improvement!
  - darawk 7y ago
    While that's true...if you were to redistribute the wealth of the world's richest people to the world's poorest, you would accelerate climate change by at least an order of magnitude over night.
    - Tade0 7y ago
      Nobody is suggesting doing that specifically. It's not inequality per se that's at fault, but a system that serves the powerful thus increasing it. As long as such a system is in place the powerful will exploit it for their gain disregarding casualties like the environment.
      - darawk 7y ago
        Except that as I said, things are getting better for the world's poorest at an incredible rate. So, if your concern is the world's poorest, you probably don't want to mess with the current system too much. If you do still want to mess with the current system, you probably aren't actually concerned with helping the poor.
        Tade0 7y ago
        That's a false equivalence, because you're assuming that this system is the only one which benefits the poor. The worlds poorest will suffer from climate change the most and this system is only making it worse. They may be (ostensibly) better off now, but their children certainly won't.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
notacoward 7y ago
Your argument would work a lot better without the foul attribution of motive (envy). No, it's not envy, it's disgust - both at a system perceived to be unjust and at a perceived misrepresentation of that system as meritocracy. There's plenty of debate to be had about whether those perceptions are accurate, but none while the "envy" talking point is foremost in anyone's approach to the conversation.
- darawk 7y ago
  Let's dispense with the emotional imputation, then. The point is: this person is concerned about rich people being rich, not poor people being poor. Anyone actually concerned with helping the poor would look at the current system, and notice the tremendous job it's doing lifting the entire world out of poverty, and do everything they could to keep it going. So whatever the emotion, it's abundantly clear that the only thing this person actually cares about is tearing down wealthy people. To me, the emotion that best explains that fact is envy, but feel free to fill in the one that you prefer.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    > Let's dispense with the emotional imputation, then. Yes, let's. You're the one pretending to read minds and attribute emotion. Stick to facts, bub. Here's another hint: just because someone's not talking about the global poor doesn't mean they don't care. That's just not the conversation they're trying to have right now. The current topic is inequality in US college admissions. Insisting that people talk about something else is just concern trolling. It's deflection from the fact that those admissions claim to be meritocratic but clearly aren't, thus a defense of both inequity and misrepresentation. Why are you so soft on things that disgust others?
    - darawk 7y ago
      > Yes, let's. You're the one pretending to read minds and attribute emotion. Stick to facts, bub. Like I said, feel free to insert any other emotion that explains the facts. > Here's another hint: just because someone's not talking about the global poor doesn't mean they don't care. That's just not the conversation they're trying to have right now. The current topic is inequality in US college admissions. Which current topic? Did you read the comment I was originally responding to? It was making statements much broader than college admissions.

by darawk 7y ago

TaylorAlexander 7y ago

Look deeper. I may at times experience envy for the super rich, but that is not what motivates me. What motivates me is the obvious unfairness of a system where wealth determines your influence and where most everything in our world is controlled by a small percentage of the people. That leads to all kinds of problems in society and that’s what motivates me. The poor deserve more than a Walmart full of stuff. They deserve democratic representation in our society.

darawk 7y ago
They literally have democratic representation, though. They vote. They exercise that power all the time.
- notacoward 7y ago
  That's a ridiculously narrow view of what democratic representation means. Is it still democratic representation when some people are barred from voting for no good reason? Subjected to undue burdens or intimidation? Is it still democratic representation when some people's votes count for less, either because of gerrymandering or because of extra seats in the senate and electoral college for thinly populated states? Is it still democratic representation when we can't verify that our voting systems are secure, but can verify that one party is doing everything they can to block improvement? How bad do these distortions have to get before we conclude that we're no more "democratic" than the old USSR? They had elections too, so it's all good, right?
  - darawk 7y ago
    > That's a ridiculously narrow view of what democratic representation means I don't think the literal meaning of democracy is a "ridiculous narrow representation of democracy". We may agree that the right to vote does not, on its own, in all cases, entirely embody all aspects of the democratic ideal. But it is certainly not a "ridiculously narrow interpretation". > Is it still democratic representation when some people are barred from voting for no good reason? Subjected to undue burdens or intimidation? I'd say it is still democracy, but imperfectly implemented. The overwhelming majority of Americans are able to vote. Should it be better? Of course. But the idea that the poor in aggregate are unrepresented politically is ludicrous. > How bad do these distortions have to get before we conclude that we're no more "democratic" than the old USSR? They had elections too, so it's all good, right? We're a lot more democratic than the USSR. To suggest otherwise is the height of privileged conceit. Modern Russia is more democratic than the USSR, and if you think our democracy is equivalent to theirs, take a trip over there and try running against Putin in the next election. See how that works out for you.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  No. False. Totally wrong. They vote every couple of years for candidates that are also accepting millions in donations from wealthy donors. No public airtime is provided so they only hear about candidates who can raise money. They go to their workplace where the owners make all the decisions. Collectively most decisions in our economy are made by the capital owners or the political candidates who could raise the most funds from capital owners. Regular non capital owning people in America have significantly less political power than those with money. That is not democratic representation.
  - darawk 7y ago
    > They vote every couple of years for candidates Aka the definition of democracy, yes. > that are also accepting millions in donations from wealthy donors. No public airtime is provided so they only hear about candidates who can raise money. Candidates that the wealthy don't like raise money all the time, though. Most rich people didn't like Trump. They certainly don't like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. If your assertion is that money in politics systematically disenfranchises the poor, then you may want to re-examine the current democratic field. > They go to their workplace where the owners make all the decisions. Collectively most decisions in our economy are made by the capital owners or the political candidates who could raise the most funds from capital owners. Except that they choose to go to those workplaces. They may choose to do whatever they wish with their own time and labor.
    - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
      > Except that they choose to go to those workplaces. They may choose to do whatever they wish with their own time and labor. I’m reminded of the factory workers in other countries whose indigenous land was stolen by the government so they could no longer farm. The one fertile farming land land was used to build factories. And the indigenes people, who no longer had any land to farm on, finally “chose” to work in the factory. I disagree with you strongly that voting every few years is the definition of democracy if you mean to say it is the entire definition of democracy. There’s been thousands of years of history and philosophy as it relates to democracy and voting every few years is far from the only idea people have had about it. In particular voting for representatives is participation in a representative democracy, which is one kind of democracy. There are others. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_assemblies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_assemblies

LeonB 7y ago

> The world is getting better by basically any objective metric at an incredible pace. I think “basically any” is overselling it (particularly when combined with “incredible pace”) Climate change is hard to overlook, for example. Income inequality is rising. That leads to more of the kind of statements you’re objecting to.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Thank you. The potential destruction of the majority of living species on earth is hardly an improvement!
- darawk 7y ago
  While that's true...if you were to redistribute the wealth of the world's richest people to the world's poorest, you would accelerate climate change by at least an order of magnitude over night.
  - Tade0 7y ago
    Nobody is suggesting doing that specifically. It's not inequality per se that's at fault, but a system that serves the powerful thus increasing it. As long as such a system is in place the powerful will exploit it for their gain disregarding casualties like the environment.
    - darawk 7y ago
      Except that as I said, things are getting better for the world's poorest at an incredible rate. So, if your concern is the world's poorest, you probably don't want to mess with the current system too much. If you do still want to mess with the current system, you probably aren't actually concerned with helping the poor.
      - Tade0 7y ago
        That's a false equivalence, because you're assuming that this system is the only one which benefits the poor. The worlds poorest will suffer from climate change the most and this system is only making it worse. They may be (ostensibly) better off now, but their children certainly won't.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

notacoward 7y ago

Your argument would work a lot better without the foul attribution of motive (envy). No, it's not envy, it's disgust - both at a system perceived to be unjust and at a perceived misrepresentation of that system as meritocracy. There's plenty of debate to be had about whether those perceptions are accurate, but none while the "envy" talking point is foremost in anyone's approach to the conversation.

darawk 7y ago
Let's dispense with the emotional imputation, then. The point is: this person is concerned about rich people being rich, not poor people being poor. Anyone actually concerned with helping the poor would look at the current system, and notice the tremendous job it's doing lifting the entire world out of poverty, and do everything they could to keep it going. So whatever the emotion, it's abundantly clear that the only thing this person actually cares about is tearing down wealthy people. To me, the emotion that best explains that fact is envy, but feel free to fill in the one that you prefer.
- notacoward 7y ago
  > Let's dispense with the emotional imputation, then. Yes, let's. You're the one pretending to read minds and attribute emotion. Stick to facts, bub. Here's another hint: just because someone's not talking about the global poor doesn't mean they don't care. That's just not the conversation they're trying to have right now. The current topic is inequality in US college admissions. Insisting that people talk about something else is just concern trolling. It's deflection from the fact that those admissions claim to be meritocratic but clearly aren't, thus a defense of both inequity and misrepresentation. Why are you so soft on things that disgust others?
  - darawk 7y ago
    > Yes, let's. You're the one pretending to read minds and attribute emotion. Stick to facts, bub. Like I said, feel free to insert any other emotion that explains the facts. > Here's another hint: just because someone's not talking about the global poor doesn't mean they don't care. That's just not the conversation they're trying to have right now. The current topic is inequality in US college admissions. Which current topic? Did you read the comment I was originally responding to? It was making statements much broader than college admissions.