6 ms·

The dismantling of safety nets is a circumvoluted problem. Safety nets are a feature of rather leftist politics (To me, helping others is the core of leftism).

The dismantling of safety nets is a circumvoluted problem. Safety nets are a feature of rather leftist politics (To me, helping others is the core of leftism). However, the same ones who set up the safety nets, have a racial preference towards helping those they perceive as in the worst situation. Yesterday it was the factory workers, today it’s women, african americans and LGBTQIA+. So, by increasing the safety nets, we are not making things better for the people you are talking about, the white men. For them, no help is coming: They are the subject of the joke, the black sheep of people who want to help. This incongruity ensures that the divide will only widen, not reduce, as you increase help for people in need. As an example, shooters in school are often white kids getting bullied, who snap. Did we end bullying? Do we make documentaries on who bullied them? No, we further pile upon the hate towards the people who snap (hard to do otherwise). It ensures that the next guy won’t find help against his bullies, and this beautiful circle continues… I say beautiful because, to abstain from finding solutions, there has to be people who find this beautiful. Anyway. If social help went to everyone, and if everyone were considered as important parts of the society, people wouldn’t snap that much.

okeuro49 5y ago
> To me, helping others is the core of leftism People on the right wing also want to help others, but the method is different: helping people to help themselves. I think there are risks to both. People can become dependent on safety nets. People can also need more help than just "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". > I say beautiful because, to abstain from finding solutions, there has to be people who find this beautiful. From an outside perspective, shootings are an intractable US problem because of the US's relationship with guns. It's not that people are "abstaining" because they somehow like the situation.
- JackMorgan 5y ago
  To play devil's advocate and be only a little cheeky, it seems the way the right of recent American politics tries to help people help themselves is to offer them military-grade weaponry, deregulated environmental protections, laws to enforce sexual and vice Christian-specific rules not widely agreed on by non-Christians, and decreased worker protections. This seems almost perfectly calculated to help them become criminals or wage slaves to modern robber barons. The people most served by the modern right are the robber barons themselves (except for the weapons part). If I was a robber baron the last thing I'd want is all my workers watching their livelihoods disappear to all have automatic weapons. I think this is why so much messaging goes to convince people that their worsening situation is because LGBTQ+ or immigrants exist and God is punishing them for the "wickedness of the land." I myself very much would prefer a model that helps people help themselves, but I am unclear what policies would achieve that goal that aren't already supported by the left. Many Americans don't want hand outs, they want dignity and a good job that pays them a thriving wage. However, they also will vote against policies that enforce a fair wage, because it's coming from the mouths of "sinners" who for all they know are causing this via "wickedness." The left can be very condescending and is large enough to have lots of people who similarly think that lack of ideological purity is the cause of the nation's issues, only the ideology is not completely agreed on by any of followers, so it's always shifting, which gives the impression that it's less serious and is very easy to mock. There's a lot about making places safer, which runs counter to how many Americans want to see themselves: they don't want places to be safer, they want to be tougher individuals, so such attempts feel weak to them. As someone who's studied the Bible far more than average (I read New Treatment Greek and went to seminary for a bit), I feel like there is _very_ little thought about sins like pride, hatefulness, and gluttony in the modern church, so it's only a partial truth according to the Bible. Describing the classic "fruits of the Spirit" does not sound anything like the modern Right: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control. It seems a situation where the messaging has just enough Christian ethics to resemble some of what one would hear from church leadership, but without the inward reflection required of most of the New Testament. It's very Old Testament with messaging that implies "it's these sinners among you who are the problem and need to be stopped or killed." The New Testament would instead lead someone to conclude that if they are being punished it is from their own personal sin. This is enforced with lessons like "let he without sin cast the first stone." I really diverged a bit here, but I've been thinking a lot about the situation of politics. The right cannot be understood without understanding how much of that worldview is shaped by religion, but also that it really isn't a Christian worldview, it's an Old Testament worldview. Too many people crave "righteous" wrath against sinners, not humble admission that all are sinners all the time, and we all need grace and forgiveness not a murderous rampage. As it pertains to policies, I'm not sure how to even start to deescalate the situation. But attempting to do so without understanding the worldviews involved will never work.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    I think this is oversimplifying the political compass. There are a whole class of people that believe helping people should be voluntary, not mandatory. Dignity is something that comes from within, but if you want a "thriving wage", negotiate for it. The left supports all sorts of policies that make helping people compulsory, at which point it starts to more resemble slavery than charity. How would you define a "fair" wage? Enough to stay alive? Raise a family? Own a house? A car? A TV? An air conditioner? I personally don't see how entitling people to these things is remotely "fair". You'll note that none of this has anything remotely to do with religion. > I'm not sure how to even start to deescalate the situation. The best way would be to refrain from imposing your view of "good" or "fair" on other people. Society is about coexisting peacefully, not binding everyone into a single ideology.
    - JackMorgan 5y ago
      You're right, it's definitely an oversimplification. I don't think though we live in a society that could allow people to negotiate for a thriving wage without a power as large as the government. It is in no way a hyperbole to state that if the American government's worker protections weaken much more we will have companies with their own private armies forcing people into company towns like what happened to our great grandparents. It wasn't that long ago, and a lot of people have forgotten how much blood was shed to give us the safely nets we have today. And yet so many people act as if individual freedom is what earned us those rights, not the government's strong arm and labor unions.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        You've rather hit the nail on the head - companies shouldn't be allowed to use violence (private armies) in order to force people to cooperate. Likewise, government should not be allowed to force terms of employment on employers. When things turn violent is the exact point the government should intervene, no sooner. It should otherwise refrain from interfering with private, peaceful negotiations between its citizens. Kellogg's is a perfect example here - the employees tried to collectively bargain for higher wages, and the employer decided that the cost of replacing the workforce was lower than the cost of meeting their demands. No violence required, just a voluntary basis for cooperation. This is how it should work.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  I suspect it’s not the US relationship with guns, but the US relationship with violence. The national myth about the founding of the US is about using violence to solve problems. And Americans seem very quick to turn to violence when under any sort of perceived threat. I doubt getting rid of guns, even if you could find a way to do it, would solve the problem.
  - heurisko 5y ago
    Other countries have violence too, but it's scaled down from military grade assault rifles, to fist-fights.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
astura 5y ago
How old are you? This is factually incorrect, when I was in school bullying was considered totally and completely normal and not something to be concerned about at all. Now we have high-profile national and international anti-bullying campaigns by both governments, NGOs, and private for-profit companies. We have anti-bullying legislation and bullying is even something the CDC studies.

okeuro49 5y ago

> To me, helping others is the core of leftism People on the right wing also want to help others, but the method is different: helping people to help themselves. I think there are risks to both. People can become dependent on safety nets. People can also need more help than just "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". > I say beautiful because, to abstain from finding solutions, there has to be people who find this beautiful. From an outside perspective, shootings are an intractable US problem because of the US's relationship with guns. It's not that people are "abstaining" because they somehow like the situation.

JackMorgan 5y ago
To play devil's advocate and be only a little cheeky, it seems the way the right of recent American politics tries to help people help themselves is to offer them military-grade weaponry, deregulated environmental protections, laws to enforce sexual and vice Christian-specific rules not widely agreed on by non-Christians, and decreased worker protections. This seems almost perfectly calculated to help them become criminals or wage slaves to modern robber barons. The people most served by the modern right are the robber barons themselves (except for the weapons part). If I was a robber baron the last thing I'd want is all my workers watching their livelihoods disappear to all have automatic weapons. I think this is why so much messaging goes to convince people that their worsening situation is because LGBTQ+ or immigrants exist and God is punishing them for the "wickedness of the land." I myself very much would prefer a model that helps people help themselves, but I am unclear what policies would achieve that goal that aren't already supported by the left. Many Americans don't want hand outs, they want dignity and a good job that pays them a thriving wage. However, they also will vote against policies that enforce a fair wage, because it's coming from the mouths of "sinners" who for all they know are causing this via "wickedness." The left can be very condescending and is large enough to have lots of people who similarly think that lack of ideological purity is the cause of the nation's issues, only the ideology is not completely agreed on by any of followers, so it's always shifting, which gives the impression that it's less serious and is very easy to mock. There's a lot about making places safer, which runs counter to how many Americans want to see themselves: they don't want places to be safer, they want to be tougher individuals, so such attempts feel weak to them. As someone who's studied the Bible far more than average (I read New Treatment Greek and went to seminary for a bit), I feel like there is _very_ little thought about sins like pride, hatefulness, and gluttony in the modern church, so it's only a partial truth according to the Bible. Describing the classic "fruits of the Spirit" does not sound anything like the modern Right: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control. It seems a situation where the messaging has just enough Christian ethics to resemble some of what one would hear from church leadership, but without the inward reflection required of most of the New Testament. It's very Old Testament with messaging that implies "it's these sinners among you who are the problem and need to be stopped or killed." The New Testament would instead lead someone to conclude that if they are being punished it is from their own personal sin. This is enforced with lessons like "let he without sin cast the first stone." I really diverged a bit here, but I've been thinking a lot about the situation of politics. The right cannot be understood without understanding how much of that worldview is shaped by religion, but also that it really isn't a Christian worldview, it's an Old Testament worldview. Too many people crave "righteous" wrath against sinners, not humble admission that all are sinners all the time, and we all need grace and forgiveness not a murderous rampage. As it pertains to policies, I'm not sure how to even start to deescalate the situation. But attempting to do so without understanding the worldviews involved will never work.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  I think this is oversimplifying the political compass. There are a whole class of people that believe helping people should be voluntary, not mandatory. Dignity is something that comes from within, but if you want a "thriving wage", negotiate for it. The left supports all sorts of policies that make helping people compulsory, at which point it starts to more resemble slavery than charity. How would you define a "fair" wage? Enough to stay alive? Raise a family? Own a house? A car? A TV? An air conditioner? I personally don't see how entitling people to these things is remotely "fair". You'll note that none of this has anything remotely to do with religion. > I'm not sure how to even start to deescalate the situation. The best way would be to refrain from imposing your view of "good" or "fair" on other people. Society is about coexisting peacefully, not binding everyone into a single ideology.
  - JackMorgan 5y ago
    You're right, it's definitely an oversimplification. I don't think though we live in a society that could allow people to negotiate for a thriving wage without a power as large as the government. It is in no way a hyperbole to state that if the American government's worker protections weaken much more we will have companies with their own private armies forcing people into company towns like what happened to our great grandparents. It wasn't that long ago, and a lot of people have forgotten how much blood was shed to give us the safely nets we have today. And yet so many people act as if individual freedom is what earned us those rights, not the government's strong arm and labor unions.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      You've rather hit the nail on the head - companies shouldn't be allowed to use violence (private armies) in order to force people to cooperate. Likewise, government should not be allowed to force terms of employment on employers. When things turn violent is the exact point the government should intervene, no sooner. It should otherwise refrain from interfering with private, peaceful negotiations between its citizens. Kellogg's is a perfect example here - the employees tried to collectively bargain for higher wages, and the employer decided that the cost of replacing the workforce was lower than the cost of meeting their demands. No violence required, just a voluntary basis for cooperation. This is how it should work.
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
I suspect it’s not the US relationship with guns, but the US relationship with violence. The national myth about the founding of the US is about using violence to solve problems. And Americans seem very quick to turn to violence when under any sort of perceived threat. I doubt getting rid of guns, even if you could find a way to do it, would solve the problem.
- heurisko 5y ago
  Other countries have violence too, but it's scaled down from military grade assault rifles, to fist-fights.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

astura 5y ago

How old are you? This is factually incorrect, when I was in school bullying was considered totally and completely normal and not something to be concerned about at all. Now we have high-profile national and international anti-bullying campaigns by both governments, NGOs, and private for-profit companies. We have anti-bullying legislation and bullying is even something the CDC studies.