4 ms·

Meh. That's a straw man based on ignorance. The left puts effort into responsibility and care for community. Why do you think the right advocates for dismantli

Meh. That's a straw man based on ignorance. The left puts effort into responsibility and care for community. Why do you think the right advocates for dismantling social services and the left champions them?

nailer 4y ago
The left champions not working, rather than social care. In the UK it’s common to hear ‘I’m on benefits’ as an excuse in itself, rather than ‘I am disabled’ or ‘I am elderly’ or some other legitimate reason for receiving money.
- andrelaszlo 4y ago
  I wonder what you hear then. To me it sounds like "I'm out of options". It makes me think of this aid program that gave people in really poor countries money instead of food. With money they could of course buy food, but also save to improve their life in general, for example by improving their housing, buying a goat, sending their children to school, etc. Previously, they were just dependent on the food, medicines, and whatever was provided by the system and the situation rarely changed for the better. I think it's similar, at least where I live. With a better support system, people seem to be less likely to get dependent on it. Seems like a good thing to do in the long run, even if you just think about it economically. Unless, perhaps, you need a class of people that are in a sort of benefits bondage. I don't really want to think that this is by design though.
  - nailer 4y ago
    My expectation is that healthy adults should work.
rowtheway 4y ago
Broadly speaking, the community-oriented left in places like the US support bureaucratic government welfare programs, while community-oriented conservatives support more organic, often religious, and non-government charitable organizations. My preference runs toward the latter, for reasons best explained by John Carmack: https://archive.ph/0tHg4 https://archive.ph/0tHg4
- cmoski 4y ago
  "more organic, often religious, and non-government charitable organizations" Or none at all. Or ones for people in a select group. Most people live in towns, cities, states and nations, not communities. State and national governments cannot rely on the good of the neighbour. Larger, more equitable systems need to be put in place.
  - rowtheway 4y ago
    > Or none at all. Or ones for people in a select group. Bureaucrats do this too. See the history of communism in Europe, or present state of communism in China. Centralized welfare is a centralized system of control in the hands of politicians.
- freedom2099 4y ago
  If you don’t see the issue with “often religious” then nothing I say can change your mind! Religion as a moral compass is horrible! Religious communities are often the most toxic ones!
  - rowtheway 4y ago
    I am an atheist ex-Catholic. The big atheist-leftist crowd in my college town are intensely more violent, toxic, and racist than local Catholics or Lutherans. Lack of religious belief is no guarantee of kindness or rationality, nor is the presence of faith a strong signal of evil.
    - cyberge99 4y ago
      Behavior is a strong signal and I see more Christian harlots and swindlers than people practicing Christ’s philosophy. The left at least don’t pretend to be wholesome and righteous.
      - kcplate 4y ago
        > The left at least don’t pretend to be wholesome and righteous Funny, I use this same line about the right (at least in reference to politicians) in the US.
John23832 4y ago
I'm not ignorant at all. I live in NYC (the largest "community" in the country) which has the largest, most systematically effective social services system in the country. It's one thing I appreciate most about the city, other than the subway. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing (or good things used to advance perverse incentives). Too Much of a Good Thing: Methadone and "clean needle" clinics on 125th and Brooklyn under the guis of "harm reduction". The goal should be to reduce drug usage. Not make a shopping mall for dealers and zombies. Another is the total hands off approach of the mentally ill and aggressive homeless on the subways and on the streets. Good Things Use To Advance Perverse Incentives: The entire homeless industrial complex in California, which does absolutely nothing but syphon money to these homeless "nonprofits". I lived in both San Jose and LA and frankly the situation was addressed in a maddeningly regressive fashion. You sometimes have to ask yourself WHY someone is championing something. Very often it's not because of altruism.
- danaris 4y ago
  The goal should be to reduce harm. The idea that drug use is axiomatically bad is an invention of the War On Drugs. Criminalizing drug addiction increases harm. Treating it as a disease provably reduces harm. And, in fact, reduces drug use. Methadone and clean needle clinics are pointed in the right direction, but they're not enough. They just happen to be all the people who got them put in place could manage.
  - John23832 4y ago
    The goal should be to reduce drug use and end addiction. "Harm" is relative. There are functioning heroin addicts(either tar or hillbilly heroin) that some people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Hart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Hart) would say aren't "harming" anyone. It's still not something to societally encourage. I also said nothing of criminalization of addicts. Seller's, sure. > Methadone and clean needle clinics are pointed in the right direction, but they're not enough. They just happen to be all the people who got them put in place could manage. This makes no sense. The halfass'd effort is worse than nothing at all.

nailer 4y ago

The left champions not working, rather than social care. In the UK it’s common to hear ‘I’m on benefits’ as an excuse in itself, rather than ‘I am disabled’ or ‘I am elderly’ or some other legitimate reason for receiving money.

andrelaszlo 4y ago
I wonder what you hear then. To me it sounds like "I'm out of options". It makes me think of this aid program that gave people in really poor countries money instead of food. With money they could of course buy food, but also save to improve their life in general, for example by improving their housing, buying a goat, sending their children to school, etc. Previously, they were just dependent on the food, medicines, and whatever was provided by the system and the situation rarely changed for the better. I think it's similar, at least where I live. With a better support system, people seem to be less likely to get dependent on it. Seems like a good thing to do in the long run, even if you just think about it economically. Unless, perhaps, you need a class of people that are in a sort of benefits bondage. I don't really want to think that this is by design though.
- nailer 4y ago
  My expectation is that healthy adults should work.

rowtheway 4y ago

Broadly speaking, the community-oriented left in places like the US support bureaucratic government welfare programs, while community-oriented conservatives support more organic, often religious, and non-government charitable organizations. My preference runs toward the latter, for reasons best explained by John Carmack: https://archive.ph/0tHg4 https://archive.ph/0tHg4

cmoski 4y ago
"more organic, often religious, and non-government charitable organizations" Or none at all. Or ones for people in a select group. Most people live in towns, cities, states and nations, not communities. State and national governments cannot rely on the good of the neighbour. Larger, more equitable systems need to be put in place.
- rowtheway 4y ago
  > Or none at all. Or ones for people in a select group. Bureaucrats do this too. See the history of communism in Europe, or present state of communism in China. Centralized welfare is a centralized system of control in the hands of politicians.
freedom2099 4y ago
If you don’t see the issue with “often religious” then nothing I say can change your mind! Religion as a moral compass is horrible! Religious communities are often the most toxic ones!
- rowtheway 4y ago
  I am an atheist ex-Catholic. The big atheist-leftist crowd in my college town are intensely more violent, toxic, and racist than local Catholics or Lutherans. Lack of religious belief is no guarantee of kindness or rationality, nor is the presence of faith a strong signal of evil.
  - cyberge99 4y ago
    Behavior is a strong signal and I see more Christian harlots and swindlers than people practicing Christ’s philosophy. The left at least don’t pretend to be wholesome and righteous.
    - kcplate 4y ago
      > The left at least don’t pretend to be wholesome and righteous Funny, I use this same line about the right (at least in reference to politicians) in the US.

John23832 4y ago

I'm not ignorant at all. I live in NYC (the largest "community" in the country) which has the largest, most systematically effective social services system in the country. It's one thing I appreciate most about the city, other than the subway. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing (or good things used to advance perverse incentives). Too Much of a Good Thing: Methadone and "clean needle" clinics on 125th and Brooklyn under the guis of "harm reduction". The goal should be to reduce drug usage. Not make a shopping mall for dealers and zombies. Another is the total hands off approach of the mentally ill and aggressive homeless on the subways and on the streets. Good Things Use To Advance Perverse Incentives: The entire homeless industrial complex in California, which does absolutely nothing but syphon money to these homeless "nonprofits". I lived in both San Jose and LA and frankly the situation was addressed in a maddeningly regressive fashion. You sometimes have to ask yourself WHY someone is championing something. Very often it's not because of altruism.

danaris 4y ago
The goal should be to reduce harm. The idea that drug use is axiomatically bad is an invention of the War On Drugs. Criminalizing drug addiction increases harm. Treating it as a disease provably reduces harm. And, in fact, reduces drug use. Methadone and clean needle clinics are pointed in the right direction, but they're not enough. They just happen to be all the people who got them put in place could manage.
- John23832 4y ago
  The goal should be to reduce drug use and end addiction. "Harm" is relative. There are functioning heroin addicts(either tar or hillbilly heroin) that some people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Hart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Hart) would say aren't "harming" anyone. It's still not something to societally encourage. I also said nothing of criminalization of addicts. Seller's, sure. > Methadone and clean needle clinics are pointed in the right direction, but they're not enough. They just happen to be all the people who got them put in place could manage. This makes no sense. The halfass'd effort is worse than nothing at all.