3 ms·

> Personal behavior is the foundation that everything else is built on. There really is no alternative. This reminds me of designers who craft poorly designed

> Personal behavior is the foundation that everything else is built on. There really is no alternative. This reminds me of designers who craft poorly designed interfaces which statistically guarantee that some portion of their users will make "mistakes". and then insist that users are exclusively at fault. There are structural issues in the US which greatly exacerbate the problem of homelessness and which have nothing to do with what moral teachings the homeless may or may not have received. If anything, the vituperative contempt for the homeless illustrates a moral failing in a different population. > You dont have to come at this from a position of judgment, superiority, or avoiding aid. That is a false binary. In my view, the comment I was responding to did precisely that — came at this from a perspective of avoiding aid — by asserting that focusing on anything other than personal morality was bound to fail: "However, it's unlikely you'll ever help enough of them permanently out of their holes to address the problem in any substantial way."

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I would recommend giving it another read with a charitable mindset. I didn't see any moralizing or judgment of the poor. They had a critique of current methods for addressing poverty, but I'm assuming you also agree that the status quo is not working well. >In my view, the comment I was responding to did precisely that — came at this from a perspective of avoiding aid They acknowledged that providing aid to adults is indeed good, but critiqued it as insufficient. It is indeed noble to help the homeless who are mentally or physically disabled, or addicted to drugs or alcohol, or unemployable for lack of job skills or education, or abandoned by spouses or family, or simply too old and alone They further advocated for providing aid that is missing, and focusing it on younger populations to empower them to avoid critical pitfalls and poverty traps. Instead, the first step has to be a truly intensive effort to educate and convince children, beginning at about ages 6 to 7 They want to help children understand the following list and enable them make better choices on the following: 1) Importance of health and avoiding addiction 2) Value of education and marketable skills 3) The dangers of financial debt 4) Self sufficiency as a goal 5) Avoiding crime Do you think that this education and helping children make successful choices is unnecessary or somehow detrimental?
- rectang 4y ago
  > I'm assuming you also agree that the status quo is not working well. I do, insofar as I believe the moralistic emphasis of the status quo is counterproductive. > Do you think that this education and empowerment is unnecessary or somehow detrimental? Yes, I believe that such moralistic emphasis is detrimental. I believe that emphasizing personal responsibility while deemphasizing structural factors is hypocritical and morally bankrupt. To those failures who are the supposed targets of the teaching, they learn from the hypocrisy of their teachers that "personal responsibility" is just a cudgel to beat them with while they are being pressed down. To those who succeed, it induces a crippling inability to acknowledge the role of luck and environment in their success, and a corresponding tendency to "other" society's failures. > They further advocated for providing aid that is missing, The only "aid" that they advocate is moral teaching — which does nothing for the homeless, but gives people who are not homeless a narcotic bloom of superiority.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    >Yes, I believe that such moralistic emphasis is detrimental. I believe that emphasizing personal responsibility while deemphasizing structural factors is hypocritical and morally bankrupt. It seems like you are interjecting morality again into our discussion where none was included. A deficit of personal empowerment IS a structural and environmental factor. Not the only one, but it is one of the most important if not the most important in determining outcomes. If you take a poor, abused, and neglected child and teach them they can not and will not amount to anything because of the material conditions of their birth, you are actively damaging their outcomes. If you take the same poor, abused, and neglected child and teach them that that there is hope and clear goals which will get them out of poverty the vast majority of the time, you are actively improving their outcomes. This doesn't require judging anyone. This is actively improving environmental factors which lead to success. The impacts are statistically robust and well understood. Luck and environment played a huge role in my success. A huge environmental factor was parenting and education which made me understand how those 5 factors impact success, and instilling a belief that it was within my reach if I stuck to them.
    - 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I would recommend giving it another read with a charitable mindset. I didn't see any moralizing or judgment of the poor. They had a critique of current methods for addressing poverty, but I'm assuming you also agree that the status quo is not working well. >In my view, the comment I was responding to did precisely that — came at this from a perspective of avoiding aid They acknowledged that providing aid to adults is indeed good, but critiqued it as insufficient. It is indeed noble to help the homeless who are mentally or physically disabled, or addicted to drugs or alcohol, or unemployable for lack of job skills or education, or abandoned by spouses or family, or simply too old and alone They further advocated for providing aid that is missing, and focusing it on younger populations to empower them to avoid critical pitfalls and poverty traps. Instead, the first step has to be a truly intensive effort to educate and convince children, beginning at about ages 6 to 7 They want to help children understand the following list and enable them make better choices on the following: 1) Importance of health and avoiding addiction 2) Value of education and marketable skills 3) The dangers of financial debt 4) Self sufficiency as a goal 5) Avoiding crime Do you think that this education and helping children make successful choices is unnecessary or somehow detrimental?

rectang 4y ago
> I'm assuming you also agree that the status quo is not working well. I do, insofar as I believe the moralistic emphasis of the status quo is counterproductive. > Do you think that this education and empowerment is unnecessary or somehow detrimental? Yes, I believe that such moralistic emphasis is detrimental. I believe that emphasizing personal responsibility while deemphasizing structural factors is hypocritical and morally bankrupt. To those failures who are the supposed targets of the teaching, they learn from the hypocrisy of their teachers that "personal responsibility" is just a cudgel to beat them with while they are being pressed down. To those who succeed, it induces a crippling inability to acknowledge the role of luck and environment in their success, and a corresponding tendency to "other" society's failures. > They further advocated for providing aid that is missing, The only "aid" that they advocate is moral teaching — which does nothing for the homeless, but gives people who are not homeless a narcotic bloom of superiority.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >Yes, I believe that such moralistic emphasis is detrimental. I believe that emphasizing personal responsibility while deemphasizing structural factors is hypocritical and morally bankrupt. It seems like you are interjecting morality again into our discussion where none was included. A deficit of personal empowerment IS a structural and environmental factor. Not the only one, but it is one of the most important if not the most important in determining outcomes. If you take a poor, abused, and neglected child and teach them they can not and will not amount to anything because of the material conditions of their birth, you are actively damaging their outcomes. If you take the same poor, abused, and neglected child and teach them that that there is hope and clear goals which will get them out of poverty the vast majority of the time, you are actively improving their outcomes. This doesn't require judging anyone. This is actively improving environmental factors which lead to success. The impacts are statistically robust and well understood. Luck and environment played a huge role in my success. A huge environmental factor was parenting and education which made me understand how those 5 factors impact success, and instilling a belief that it was within my reach if I stuck to them.
  - 4y ago