3 ms·

I think lots of conservatives desperately want to help the poor, just not in ways that might seem kind & empathetic to you. Don’t confuse tough love with no lo

I think lots of conservatives desperately want to help the poor, just not in ways that might seem kind & empathetic to you. Don’t confuse tough love with no love - many people simply don’t think welfare is going to actually help.

maedayx 3y ago
But as we've seen time and again, those people are wrong. Giving people money helps, period. So either these people are simply ignoring facts, or they are not participating in good faith.
- FredPret 3y ago
  …or they disagree with you. Only in a bubble can complex facts seem so clear-cut. I, for one, don’t agree that “we’ve seen time and time again” that cash handouts help.
  - malfist 3y ago
    You're welcome to disagree, but that doesn't change the facts.
    - FredPret 3y ago
      I could say the same to you. Political progress can be made only through meeting in the middle and negotiation, not by finger-pointing and accusing the opposition of being wrong. There's a reason millions of reasonable adults disagree with you (and who agree with you) - the truth is not clear-cut and complex and presents many seemingly contrary facts.
lapcat 3y ago
> Don’t confuse tough love with no love The attitude that poor people need "tough love" is extremely condescending, so yes, it's difficult to distinguish tough love from no love. > many people simply don’t think welfare is going to actually help. The article argues that this belief is not based on the empirical evidence. I suspect that this belief is actually the result of a condescending attitude toward poor people rather than the cause of so-called "tough love" policies.
- Wieldable4640 3y ago
  It seems to flow from the idea that “might makes right”, but you replace might with money. If you make money you’re doing well. That idea can be extended to imply that being poor means you’ve done something wrong. To me it echoes feudalist ideas like divine rule. The king deserved to be king, otherwise God would not have allowed him to be king. Therefore the king must be good. In my opinion this way of thinking is formed by looking at existing hierarchies and retroactively defining morality based on those hierarchies. Which then leads to the idea that poor people must be poor because of something they did, how could the hierarchy exist otherwise? This line of thinking also leads to the opinion that rich people do better, which does not consider that poor people might be doing the best they can under their circumstances, even if it is not the optimal strategy.
shuntress 3y ago
"Tough Love" would be some kind of "Three Strikes" type of deal where your UBI is cut off if you consistently fail to demonstrate some sort of basic function. What you are alluding to is a "no love" stance (the standard conservative viewpoint). The idea that everyone should be able to "bootstrap" themselves out of poverty.
- malfist 3y ago
  "Three Strikes" and you deserve to starve? Seems a little harsh.
  - shuntress 3y ago
    Yeah. It is a little too harsh. The point of my comment was that the standard conservative's stance of "No strikes and you deserve to starve" is more than a little too harsh.

maedayx 3y ago

But as we've seen time and again, those people are wrong. Giving people money helps, period. So either these people are simply ignoring facts, or they are not participating in good faith.

FredPret 3y ago
…or they disagree with you. Only in a bubble can complex facts seem so clear-cut. I, for one, don’t agree that “we’ve seen time and time again” that cash handouts help.
- malfist 3y ago
  You're welcome to disagree, but that doesn't change the facts.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    I could say the same to you. Political progress can be made only through meeting in the middle and negotiation, not by finger-pointing and accusing the opposition of being wrong. There's a reason millions of reasonable adults disagree with you (and who agree with you) - the truth is not clear-cut and complex and presents many seemingly contrary facts.

lapcat 3y ago

> Don’t confuse tough love with no love The attitude that poor people need "tough love" is extremely condescending, so yes, it's difficult to distinguish tough love from no love. > many people simply don’t think welfare is going to actually help. The article argues that this belief is not based on the empirical evidence. I suspect that this belief is actually the result of a condescending attitude toward poor people rather than the cause of so-called "tough love" policies.

Wieldable4640 3y ago
It seems to flow from the idea that “might makes right”, but you replace might with money. If you make money you’re doing well. That idea can be extended to imply that being poor means you’ve done something wrong. To me it echoes feudalist ideas like divine rule. The king deserved to be king, otherwise God would not have allowed him to be king. Therefore the king must be good. In my opinion this way of thinking is formed by looking at existing hierarchies and retroactively defining morality based on those hierarchies. Which then leads to the idea that poor people must be poor because of something they did, how could the hierarchy exist otherwise? This line of thinking also leads to the opinion that rich people do better, which does not consider that poor people might be doing the best they can under their circumstances, even if it is not the optimal strategy.

shuntress 3y ago

"Tough Love" would be some kind of "Three Strikes" type of deal where your UBI is cut off if you consistently fail to demonstrate some sort of basic function. What you are alluding to is a "no love" stance (the standard conservative viewpoint). The idea that everyone should be able to "bootstrap" themselves out of poverty.

malfist 3y ago
"Three Strikes" and you deserve to starve? Seems a little harsh.
- shuntress 3y ago
  Yeah. It is a little too harsh. The point of my comment was that the standard conservative's stance of "No strikes and you deserve to starve" is more than a little too harsh.