I’m not saying I agree with them, but you are literally ignoring what they’re saying. They’re saying you can be nuanced and think two things are bad, while you seems to think that them saying one is thing is bad means they think the other thing is good. I am also astonished at how many comments there are and no one has corrected you on this.
They’re saying you can be nuanced and think two things are bad
while this is correct in a vacuum, it’s like saying “You can be mad at somebody who accidentally walked into you while looking somewhere else, and you can be mad at somebody who shat on your rug, kidnapped your pets, and burned your house down.”
clearly there’s very, very different levels of anger involved here, and they’re very, very different problems. so much so that if somebody came to you complaining about both of those things, like “God fucking damn it, a guy walked into me in the train station today, he said sorry but he should have been more aware of his surroundings. Like, holy shit, people are just so inconsiderate these days. I was having a bad day at work as well, so that just made it ten times worse. Also, somebody burned my house down and my pets are gone and there’s a big turd on my rug, that also kinda sucks.” then you would also be very confused at their reaction. I, personally, wouldn’t be like “Yeah dude, both of those problems suck, I feel you” I would instead be like “…what? Holy fucking shit dude, we’ve gotta get you a new place and call some people! Why do you give a shit about the guy who walked into you? Come on, let’s go!”
people doing whatever with whatever money they can scrounge up is infinitely less of a problem than an entire class of obscenely, just absurdly rich people stealing all our surplus value, enforcing a system of harsh labor for billions, refusing to redistribute sufficient resources to even allow people to have their basic needs met (which would still leave them billionaires), destroying the world’s ecosystems for profit, etc etc, and so using your time and potentially effort to campaign against both these problems (the former being caused by the latter, even!) is just deeply silly and worthy of a dunk.
They’re not being nuanced. The fairy tales they believe makes public policy more difficult by making the standard in order to increase public confidence in welfare so high that it’s actually impossible to enforce. The goal of that nonsense is to dismiss actual statistics over the frequency of genuine fraud in order to ultimate destroy the entire welfare sysrem, which is in no sense “nuanced” or “centrist” or whatever you want to call it. It’s just a means to throw innocent people to the wolves in order to please a bunch of reactionaries who will never be happy with systems used to help those in need.
If the premise is bad the nuance is meaningless. In this case the premise means that if you agree with their example that two things can be bad you are forced to agree with their premise based on anecdotes and falsehoods.
People aren’t being drawn into agreeing with a bad take just the logic of argumentation is sound. I am also astonished this is lost on you.
No you don’t understand the point, the fact he thinks both are bad is why we’re making fun of him, poor people finding ways to survive (even tho in this case he just made it up) is not wrong ethically, morally or otherwise and definitely not a fuckin equivalence for billionaires exploiting the working class, nuance is not comparing a grape to a rotten apple and then asserting the grape is also rotten
Pretending otherwise is legalistic anti-working class rhetoric straight out of the Reagan play book
Because the only class conflict is between the working class and the capitalist class. Statements like these are intended to drive wedges between members of the working class and disrupt our ability to organize and promote class solidarity. Similar to the relatively recent invention of the “middle class.”
Edit: good seeing you around by the way
I don’t think she necessarily deserves an iPhone, as no one is that bad. But she certainly deserves a phone, maybe a degoogled pixel. I also said I didn’t agree with the OOP in my TLC
I don’t think she necessarily deserves an iPhone, as no one is that bad. But she certainly deserves a phone, maybe a degoogled pixel
Who the fuck are you to pontificate about the limits of what another human being living in literal hell “deserves” you demented wretch?
I also said I didn’t agree with the OOP in my TLC
The fact that you didn’t understand the point tells all. Leave, you stupid cur.
The people in charge don’t like welfare. They want welfare cut or gone. They don’t care what you think of them because they have the political power. So when you but into every discussion and tell everyone they can be mad at two things, you’re aligning yourself with the grievances of an out-of-touch class and doing absolutely nothing by being disgruntled with them too. You’re doing a little bit of the propaganda footwork for them.
You can be mad at anything you want. It would be silly to be mad at the wrong thing and bring it into focus everytime someone talks about being mad at something else. It’s not more nuanced to be a devils advocate. You have to be a devils advocate in the right way. The more nuanced position is that the bigger problem and conversation should be about abuse of wealth than abuse of social programs. We shouldn’t have to stop and genuflect to an imaginary audience of moderates when discussing their scope.
Yes, its a debit card that gets reloaded monthly by the government. If you have zero income, you can get about $280 per month. For every $100 you receive in earned or unearned income above $198, you lose $30 in benefits.
LES HOMELESS LIVE IN CONSTANT AGONY AND HAVE ADDICTIONS SO THAT MAKES THEM AS LE BAD AND LE EBIL JUST AS DEMONIC WARMONGERING PEDOPHILE ELITES WHO LIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF 99% OF ALL HUMANITY ND ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FORMERS PREDICAMENT11!!111!!!
I am constantly fucking astonished at the utter inhumanity the liberal mind can display, truly a bunch of barbaric, wretched beasts you are.
You lack nuance? Well, then provide some of that nuance for us. Tell us why poor people allegedly trying to bend a set of sadistic and humiliating rules in order to live in the tiniest bit of decency is on par with oligarchs, who already has more undeserved wealth than anyone could use in a dozen lifetimes, fleecing the public for astronomical sums.
