Anybody?

What's the problem?

Survival of the fittest = unfit serve the fit. Primitive.
Responsibility of the fittest = fit serve the unfit. Progressive.


The problem is that there is a lower class that is oppressed. They do the work for the upper class. If there is ever a dispute between a person of low money/low class, and a rich person/upper class, the rich almost always wins.

The main problem is this:
Our social structure is arranged so that there is always a working class doing the dirty work for the upper class.
It is nearly impossible for a person of lower class to move upward.
The few who do make it upward do so because they have proven to be 'fit' over the rest, and are able to make it into the upper class.

We must find a solution to make it so that the fit are serving the unfit. The fit are the ones doing the dirty work so that the unfit can get educated and taken care of in order to become fit.

The people with more education and more ability should be the ones taking the responsibility for making society work.


If you must ask what the problem is, all you have to do is take a look around to find the answer.
POOR PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING

Survival of the fittest = unfit serve the fit. Primitive.
Responsibility of the fittest = fit serve the unfit. Progressive.
Many British aristocrats believed they had a responsibilty to their tenants and servants to an extent that clearly would have placed them in your progressive camp.
The problem is that there is a lower class that is oppressed. They do the work for the upper class. I just looked out my window to check: we aren't in Dickensian England, Keir Hardy is dead, we really never have had it so good. The lower class work for themselves, so they can enjoy a few beers, a holiday in Spain, and a wide screen TV. My father would love to have been opressed like that.

It is nearly impossible for a person of lower class to move upward. Crap. We have a highly mobile society - at least in the UK.

The people with more education and more ability should be the ones taking the responsibility for making society work.
And they don't? I was born working class. I obtained a good education and have risen a couple of rungs on the social ladder. I've made my contributions to society in many ways. So have many friends and colleagues. The problems you are describing have little if anything to do with social stratification.

Many British aristocrats believed they had a responsibilty to their tenants and servants to an extent that clearly would have placed them in your progressive camp.
I just looked out my window to check: we aren't in Dickensian England, Keir Hardy is dead, we really never have had it so good.

D---ohhh, how very trite. never mind looking outta your WINDOW. from the rest of your post you seeem to haaave goe ap in the world.
no, drag your self off to where the fdront line of poverty is, the inner city areas. walk around a bit, and see what you think.









The lower class work for themselves, so they can enjoy a few beers, a holiday in Spain, and a wide screen TV. My father would love to have been opressed like that.

D--yip. give em some beers, hols in Spain, and a widescreen TV. that'll keep em happy

Crap. We have a highly mobile society - at least in the UK.


And they don't? I was born working class. I obtained a good education and have risen a couple of rungs on the social ladder. I've made my contributions to society in many ways. So have many friends and colleagues. The problems you are describing have little if anything to do with social stratification.

i have found from experience, that is usually the ones who HAVe come from working class backgrounds and worked themselves 'up the ladder' who are usually the hardest hearted and thus least compassionate about these issuesthough you do get some fine playrights, and filmakers who dont slagg off the people they used to be a part of, but empower them by communicating the subtleties of classism

i have found from experience, that is usually the ones who HAVe come from working class backgrounds and worked themselves 'up the ladder' who are usually the hardest hearted and thus least compassionate about these issues
I'm sorry you have had such negative experiences.
I am sorry you have misidentified (and some might say trivialised) the causes of the very real problems in society.

Please give some concrete examples of actions you believe should be undertaken by those 'higher' in the social strata.

I'm sorry you have had such negative experiences.
I am sorry you have misidentified (and some might say trivialised) the causes of the very real problems in society.

Please give some concrete examples of actions you believe should be undertaken by those 'higher' in the social strata.

Being honest...stop denying...getting real. stop pretnding that the Natural world, and other peoples considered 'lower classes' or living in undeveloped countries, are inferior, and need to get up to their standard to be authentic people
it is not all about modern gadgets. it is understanding MEANING.
of course first you have to grokk this. otherwise one is not even going to understand what i mean

The problem is that there is a lower class that is oppressed.Simply because some people have more money than others does not equate to oppression. Am I oppressed because I do not have as much money as someone like John Kerry? I live a good life, vastly better than my counterparts of a century ago. In fact, as a member of the working class, my circumstances have improved much more than the circumstances of the wealthy have improved in that same century.

So what's the problem?

Duendy, I opened my contribution to this thread by asking, What's the problem? I asked that not because I was saying there was no problem, but to get clarification of which problem CoolSkill was talking about. CoolSkill appeared to understand this and provided a clear exposition of his (her?) beliefs. These seemed to be that poverty (which all the contributors to this post deplore) was a consquence of the class system.

I believe that to be a flawed argument. I presented some reasons as to why I felt it to be flawed. Moreover, by the nature of CoolSkill's definition it implied we were discussing class in Western society in general, perhaps as most typically found in Britain. My responses reflected this.

You appear to be transfering the discussion to embrace the larger problem of third world poverty. I simply cannot see that as a problem of class, rather it is a problem of culture. The solution demands the participation of those on every side of the cultural, religious and national divides.

Being honest...stop denying...getting real. stop pretending that the Natural world, and other peoples considered 'lower classes' or living in undeveloped countries, are inferior, and need to get up to their standard to be authentic people
I do hope you are answering my question "what action should be undertaken" rather than suggesting I view the 'lower classes' or those living in undeveloped countries as inferior.
Your profile and posts on other threads suggest you live in, or adjacent to, a 'poor urban area'. Also, that you have witnessed more extreme poverty in visit(s) to Africa. [Correct me if I'm wrong.]
I suggest my own experience of growing up in poverty and living and working in three of the world's largest capital cities (Jakarta, Mexico City, Cairo), replete with poverty, give me some understanding of the condition. So don't be tempted to take the moral high ground and lecture me on my supposed indifference to or lack of understanding of the condition.

No i haven't been to Africa, and no i dont live in a roufgh area, though it is like a fairly alright small oasis within a toughEr environment and then you have the inner city

i have worked for many years in factories--not now--and my friends have always been what i callin real people....people who haven't got much, do illegal drugs, and are not pretentious. though of course some can be complete arsehioles like anyone

You calim '3rd world' poverty hasn't got anything to do with what you feel this debate is about--focussing on UK. i disagree. i see this probles as not a reductive problem but throughout the world where the present paradigm has influence. for example much poverty is dude to th capitalist system....?

Obviously if you are a success within this system, you aren't likely to knock it...too much. and thus knock those who aint or cant or wont 'make it'

your attitude seemed to be that you have decided there is NO problem cause you looked outta your window, and the 'people' have widescreen tvs, hols in majorca, and...cant remember the 3rd thing.
but i am seeing the problem not just impoverishment regarding posssesions and staus, but much more SPIRITUAL impoversihment. to study seriously about this, you cannot just focus on one specialized part of this vast problem. like UK issues, ot political issues, or even just spiritual issues. it is all involved

exploring about it demands a flexible receptive understanding

At the risk of being rude, for I am frustrated by your inability to read what I have written or my inability to communicate it clearly: there a plethora of problems. I recognise this. The primary cause of these problems is not class. That was the claim of the thread; that is what I am disputing. [For the rude version simply insert f***ing in front of each noun. ]

At the risk of being rude,

D--oh go on, let it all out dude....

for I am frustrated by your inability to read what I have written or my inability to communicate it clearly:

D--actually i can very much read you clearly

there a plethora of problems. I recognise this. The primary cause of these problems is not class.

D--actually it is a very significant part of it!

That was the claim of the thread; that is what I am disputing. [For the rude version simply insert f***ing in front of each noun. ]

well i AINT fuking disputing it

I will speak only for what I have direct knowledge of.
America needs to redefine what we consider "basic needs" to include healthcare, food, housing and secondary education and we need vast Corporate tax reform to pat for it.
Corporations get their operating capital through investors (the people), selling products (the people), immense tax breaks (the people) and the workers (the people), and thusly are responsible for the people.
If the people would simply get their act together and get organized, we could quite easily affect the changes without any intevention from the government.
If the CEO's do not force an officer salary reduction to reasonable levels, accurate profit/loss reporting, shady tax maneuvers etc (whatever demands) we could simply sell our stocks, stop buying the products and work for small privately owned companies (or corporations that DO comply).
Social strike.

So, who is at fault?
The people.

To Duendy: I have been polite in my exchanges with you in this thread. I offered the mea culpathat my frustration could be as much a result of my inability to communicate clearly, as to your inability to interpret accurately.
For your part you have persistently assigned me (implicitly or explicitly) beliefs and attitudes that are alien to me, then attacked them, as though that refuted my arguments. You think you have a clear understanding of my value system (Quote:actually i can very much read you clearly). I rather think you are mistaken.
There is a great deal of anger in your posts. I would prefer that you direct it at me only when merited.
Thank you.

First One_Raven....please dont just lay all blame on 'the people'. Leo Volont in his apology for Mairian Catholicism as he is calling his brand also lets the Inquisition off of the hook and blames the 'mob'.....i understand that it is only people who can change what's going on. but mass media has a lot to answer for. MANIPULATION of the people!


I have been polite in my exchanges with you in this thread. I offered the mea culpathat my frustration could be as much a result of my inability to communicate clearly, as to your inability to interpret accurately.
For your part you have persistently assigned me (implicitly or explicitly) beliefs and attitudes that are alien to me,

D--Well of COURSE they may seem alien to you, as some of your views seem to me. this is why a debate is trying to happen

then attacked them, as though that refuted my arguments. You think you have a clear understanding of my value system (Quote:actually i can very much read you clearly). I rather think you are mistaken.

D--well maybe try and explain yourself better. you seemed previously to suggest therer was 'no problem', is that correct? That people considered working class, or lower class, or underclass are really alright compared with your grandpa's life in that they had widescreen tellys, hols in majorca..etc. and i said that that was mere possessions, and really there was MEANING that wasn't being considered. also that living in some areas is extremely stressful for many regardless if they have a widescreen telly or not. there is a constant fear of violence. not just for old people but for young people too. more and more youngens are carrying weapons to protect themself. so you can agree there is an overall nasty vibe about?

There is a great deal of anger in your posts. I would prefer that you direct it at me only when merited.
Thank you.

i am a person not ashamed of anger.......i also notice it in your stuff. so what is wrong with it?

But it IS the peoples' fault.
Blaming it on Mass Media is what serves to avoid blame.
"It's not MY fault, the media lied to me. boo hoo." Bullshit!
People will only be manipulated if they allow it.

Of course it is not ALL people.
Some people actually DO follow what I just outlined.
They will boycott companies which act in ways that do not align with their own personal ethical standards.
MOST people, however could simply not be bothered.

It is easier to not act and blame others.

The manipulation of media is also a bullshit excuse because of far reaching information campaigns launched by countless groups.

It is hardly a secret that Nike uses sweat shops to produce their clothing.
Does that cause most people to boycott Nike?
Of course not.

Who in the USA is not aware that Corporate CEO's not only make millions upon millions of dollars A YEAR, but are often caught up in IRS, Trade and Securities scandals?
Who hasn't heard of Enron, Worldcom and the many various organizations that were tied to the scandals?

How much they know is directly dependednt upon how much they WANT to know.

It is easier to not know and not care.
It makes life more convenient.

i did say also that it really only the people who CAN change things

what you describe is apathy, indifference, and callousness. how's this come about?
I mention mass media of course, but also there is schooling, colleges, and univeristies, and having to SURVIVE...live in a world that is business oriented, corporate. if you dont tow the line...what waits? the secualr 'hell' os the ghetto, estate, homelessness, death


so, reality: someone is living this life and is deeply un-happy. so s/he goes for help. where? the only licensed place esesh if you aint got no dush...the doctor. doctor will most probably push some form of meds on you and suddenly you ar daignosed 'mentally ill'

so that is the reality. that is what keeps poeple keepin their heads down and gettin on with it, cause whats the fukin alaternative?

so this is a H U G E problem. i am sure you're aware of more and more kids being pressured by school officials and parents to take drugs because they are 'mentally ill'--ie., they can't fit in at school, and have 'behavourable problems'. why are they having to fit in. or to WHAt are they having to fit in too. this system that is callous indiffernt and apthetic? that drugs children and calls em mentally ill cause they have 'too much energy' or 'can't concentrate' on the boring life sukin drivel they push on them at school, in environments more like open prisons, where bullying is rife cause many of the big kids ar really REALLy pissed off too and thus take it out on the more vulnerable kids......

meanwhile mam....or maybe mam and dad have their widescreen telly on at home with all its increasing digital cahannle range with yet more unutterably drivel..pushing all kinds of unobtainable lifestles at them which are supposed to make a person/family more authentic and prestigous. so they blow all their credit on all these empty rewards.....
and that's just the beGINNING. i haven't started yet

I mention mass media of course, but also there is schooling, colleges, and univeristies, and having to SURVIVE...live in a world that is business oriented, corporate. if you dont tow the line...what waits? the secualr 'hell' os the ghetto, estate, homelessness, death


so, reality: someone is living this life and is deeply un-happy. so s/he goes for help. where? the only licensed place esesh if you aint got no dush...the doctor. doctor will most probably push some form of meds on you and suddenly you ar daignosed 'mentally ill'

Yeah...
That's why I said:
America needs to redefine what we consider "basic needs" to include healthcare, food, housing and secondary education

rest of the stuff you said...
My Reply (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=43585)

I am a person not ashamed of anger.......i also notice it in your stuff. so what is wrong with it?
The anger displayed in my posts is of two kinds.
1. Mock anger, designed for shock effect, in order to draw attention to a point.
2. Genuine anger directed against inexcusable ignorance (most ignorance is initially excusable), lack of compassion, close mindedness, stupidity, intolerance (which I just can't tolerate :) ), or some combination of these.

Yours may well be the same, but it comes across as "The world's a nasty place, therefore I hate all you bastards".

The anger displayed in my posts is of two kinds.
1. Mock anger, designed for shock effect,

D--oh, right, and we are supposed to spot the difference are we?

in order to draw attention to a point.
2. Genuine anger directed against inexcusable ignorance (most ignorance is initially excusable),

D--and thus implied is that you can NEVEr be accused of same, right?

lack of compassion, close mindedness, stupidity, intolerance (which I just can't tolerate :) ), or some combination of these.

D--dddditto


Yours may well be the same, but it comes across as "The world's a nasty place, therefore I hate all you bastards".

hmmmm, that is YOUR interpretation. i am debating with YOU, not all the rest

I have been laying myself open here, with complete honesty, yet you seem to wish only to attack what you have decided are my unacceptable views, even when they don't match my thinking.
oh, right, and we are supposed to spot the difference are we?
Yes. From context.

Ophiolite: Genuine anger directed against inexcusable ignorance (most ignorance is initially excusable),
Duendy: and thus implied is that you can NEVEr be accused of same, right?
I am at a complete loss as to how you derive this implication.
Let me deviate for a moment. I consider knowledge to be like the contents of a balloon, while outside the balloon is everything we don't know. The balloon itself is the boundary of our knowledge and the interface with our ignorance. When we know very little then the surface area of the balloon is small and our ignorance (perhaps more precisely, our defined ignorance) is also small. As our knowledge grows the balloon expands and so too does our ignorance.
On this basis you can always accuse me of the excusable ignorance.
I should like to think I am free of inexcusable ignorance, but I rather doubt it.
In summary, I did not intend to imply that I could not be accused of ignorance, of either type: excusable ignorance, all the time; inexcusable ignorance, on occasion.

Ophiolite: lack of compassion, close mindedness, stupidity, intolerance (which I just can't tolerate ), or some combination of these.
Duendy: and thus implied is that you can NEVEr be accused of same, right
Again, I am at a complete loss as to how you derive this implication. I even note (with an attempt at humour) that I can't tolerate intolerance.
Lack of compassion: most often guilty when those deserving of compassion are out of sight. I am working on this.
Close mindedness: I think I am less prone to this than most that I know. Remember that rejecting an idea swiftly, which has been comprehensively considered previously, and for which there is no new evidence, is not close minded, merely efficient.
Stupidity: Hugely guilty, when it relates to actions, almost never in relation to thought or reasoned argument.
So, your accusation is unfounded.
Ophiolite:Yours may well be the same, but it comes across as "The world's a nasty place, therefore I hate all you bastards". ”
Duendy:hmmmm, that is YOUR interpretation. i am debating with YOU, not all the rest
Yes, it is my interpretation. I carefully noted that your reasons [I]may well be the same as mine, but they came across as etc. I was at pains to make it clear this was a view that I had formed.
Incidentally, since you seem to be saying my reasons for displaying anger are poor, and my guess as to your reasons is wrong, then just what are your reasons ?

well, i am not your image of a purple-faced angry person feverishly typing angrily. i am cool. but to be frank your TONE does seem austere, stern, and overly analytical....and angry. though like i told you i dont care If anyone is angry. and that is only my interpretation. how i am reading your tone...and words

this thread is about exploring the state we are in. i AM angry about the state we, others, other species, and Nature is on. also sad, and bemused, and despairing, and etc etc. depending the mood i'm in

it is not right the way things are. we are all dupes being misled by so-called political suits whose only interest is in the profits they make and the power they can accrue and cling on to
you insit that my passion is 'i hate all the bastards' or something like that putting owrds into my mouth.....not so. what i hate is a system that doesn't give a shit for quality of life. that is mecnaistic and has no --even UNDERSTANDINg of spiritual meaning. so much so it doesn't even ACCEPT spirituality, un less it is the anaemic imposter of established spirituality aka Chrurcian indoctrination. the only other church it recognises and accepts with open arms legs and the rest is consumerism, and exploiting people to spend even their leisure time worrying about consuming.....

The most serious nutritional problem among America's poor is obesity.

The poorest people in America have TVs, telephones, and roofs over their heads. All but the most abjectly poor have cars and cable TV.

About the only people who are truly homeless are the crazies who can't navigate the system. Forty years ago we locked them up in hospitals "for their own good." They had roofs, beds, TVs, physical safety, and plenty of food. The leftists thought that this was a denial of their rights. Perhaps it was, who am I to judge. So now they roam the streets screaming at people, begging for quarters, and sleeping under newspapers. Somebody tell me the best way to treat these people and I'll be happy to oblige!

The rest of the "poor" people in America would qualify as upper middle class by the standards of half the Earth's population.

As for mobility, it's generational. It's not terribly easy for a janitor to move up to a more skilled job, agreed. But it's not terribly difficult for his children to do that.

The most serious nutritional problem among America's poor is obesity.

D__one of the reasons being that--as far as here is concerned, and from what i hear there too--GOOD, natrual food is more expensive, and the major corporative stores push shit sugar salt and fat saturated foods on speaciall offers etc.
Also, stress makes people rich and poor tend to binge on sugar satruated, fatty foods. plus therer is no where to walk in the States is there?

The poorest people in America have TVs, telephones, and roofs over their heads. All but the most abjectly poor have cars and cable TV.

D__ oh well, THAT'S what it's all about, the old shiny gadgets isn't it. if they've got that everything must be fine...yeah? right.....you people..you all think the same. did you know?

About the only people who are truly homeless are the crazies who can't navigate the system.

D__ the "crazies" who "can't navigate the system". hmmmmm. firs you label em, then you snuff em, huh? those 'crazies' as you discourteously and in complete and utter ignorance call them, are human beings. why dont you get your well heeled arse out there and talk to some. you may find....
as for navigating this mean arsed system that breeds mean arse statements like your coming out with..i'd sooner BE with the errr 'crazies'....crazy=HUMAN in this espect. dig?

Forty years ago we locked them up in hospitals "for their own good."

D__ oh, for their own 'good' hey? did THEY tell you it was for their own good you fascist fool?

They had roofs, beds, TVs, physical safety, and plenty of food.

D__ ohhh, just like they got now. though with bolts on the window

The leftists thought that this was a denial of their rights.

D__NOOOO?!, gett outta here?

Perhaps it was, who am I to judge.

D__ your very implicational manner is judging

So now they roam the streets screaming at people, begging for quarters, and sleeping under newspapers. Somebody tell me the best way to treat these people and I'll be happy to oblige!

D__'these people' first are people ike you and me. Accept that and you are there already. just thank your luck stars you got a roof over your head. stop thinking 'left' and 'right' and think HUMANITY. and don't demonize 'those people' LOOK at the overall fascist system you are living in, and taking on its callousness

The rest of the "poor" people in America would qualify as upper middle class by the standards of half the Earth's population.

D__ i would just love you to live what you
so know about. would love to pik you up by your smartarsed lapels and plant you right in an 'upper middle class' gehtto.....and then sit back and watch what happens

As for mobility, it's generational. It's not terribly easy for a janitor to move up to a more skilled job, agreed. But it's not terribly difficult for his children to do that.

If it wasn't for the people that pick up`your shit


jeeez people like you make me wanna get REALLy angry

You read what you want to in posts, don't you Duendy?.. I'll demonstrate: read these words of mine again carefully if you will.

I carefully noted that your reasons may well be the same as mine, but they came across as etc. I was at pains to make it clear this was a view that I had formed.
,

Yet you describe this as me insisting that is how you think.

Look back over this thread. Count the attacks by you on me or others. Count the attacks by others on you. The word belligerent comes to mind, based upon objective data.

You say my tone comes across as austere, stern, and overly analytical...As Bogart said in The Maltese Falcon "You want me to learn to stutter?" Or in my words "You want me to be trivial, blasé and vague?"

You read what you want to in posts, don't you Duendy?.. I'll demonstrate: read these words of mine again carefully if you will.

D__errr....o-kayyyy

I carefully noted that your reasons may well be the same as mine, but they came across as etc. I was at pains to make it clear this was a view that I had formed.
,

D__Truly, i could understand Chinese better than that. what does it mean?

Yet you describe this as me insisting that is how you think.

D__ i thought you said you saw no problem regarding class in the UK?

Look back over this thread. Count the attacks by you on me or others. Count the attacks by others on you. The word belligerent comes to mind, based upon objective data.
D__i cant say i have done ad hominem. but as you know, this subject is very dynamite, and when one contradicts another's political views, things can get hot--for BOTH .....it takes two

You say my tone comes across as austere, stern, and overly analytical...As Bogart said in The Maltese Falcon "You want me to learn to stutter?" Or in my words "You want me to be trivial, blasé and vague?"

I most certainly do not. I have no problem what ever with passion. Is is bland formality i hate, especially when it is covering up or apthetic. i only said that i think when you judgem me to be angry and something like "blaming all the bastards"

For the last fucking time I said tentatively that you came across that way, not that I judged you to be that way. What is so difficult to undrstand about that? You are now tempting me to judge you as deliberately obtuse.
Read that last sentence. Do you understand it? I am not saying you are deliberately obtuse, I am saying you are pushing me towards that conclusion. The distinction is simple and should be clear. Is it?

And you'll like this.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560

For the last fucking time I said tentatively that you came across that way, not that I judged you to be that way. What is so difficult to undrstand about that? You are now tempting me to judge you as deliberately obtuse.
Read that last sentence. Do you understand it? I am not saying you are deliberately obtuse, I am saying you are pushing me towards that conclusion. The distinction is simple and should be clear. Is it?

D__let's hope it IS 'the last fukin time...now lets get on with what this thread's about.....not finniky pickin about slight variations of what the other 'precisely' means

And you'll like this.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560

I'm familiar with this.

Look, what we want is not people from the 'lower classes' being able to live like people from the 'upper classes'......we ALL need to know we cant go on living like this. imagining we can just go on consuming consuming indefinately.
there HAs to be radical change where we realize that Nature cant take this onslaught of consumerism

in the UK, the Travellers tried to create an alternative lifestyle as THEY wanted to live. and Thatchers gestapo smashed it--crushed it

As a People we have to wake up. look at the stories being fed us and what we blindly accept thus justifying our ignorant bullshite

Many British aristocrats believed they had a responsibilty to their tenants and servants to an extent that clearly would have placed them in your progressive camp.

It would. It would make no sense for those with that have achieved a high sophistication of functionality to be served by those that have not. The ‘fit’ as a progressive individual takes on the duty of serving the ‘less fit’. When this occurs, it makes for a progressive society.



The lower class work for themselves, so they can enjoy a few beers, a holiday in Spain, and a wide screen TV. My father would love to have been oppressed like that.
Then I would no doubt consider him docile. Docility is an unfortunate plague. Oppression occurs when the less fit is serving the person of higher fitness. He can ave his beers, TV, and holidays in Spain. The fact remains unchanged. I believe as society takes on a more progressive demeanor (fit serving unfit), stratification diminishes. Assuming all other things are equal. In other words, oppression and stratification are directly correlated.

Definitions for fit, oppression, and docile.
You might ask what it is to be fit as opposed to unfit.
Fitness is a level of functional manifestation. Your control over your person, and ability to influence your surroundings. I would not consider this a through definition, but it provides an idea.

Oppression occurs when those of less fitness serve those that are more fitness.

Docile is the lack of acknowledgement that one is being oppressed.



Crap. We have a highly mobile society - at least in the UK.

I doubt that very much. Even in the UK, it would be impossible to have a highly mobile society simply because the way the economy is structured. The UK is structured for immobility. Perhaps unintentionally, and perhaps not. Any society that not only allows for “oppression” (as I have defined here), but makes oppression necessary for social function is a society of immobility in terms of social stratification. Also in terms of civilization advancement.



The problems you are describing have little if anything to do with social stratification.

Please explain. What I describe as the problem is social stratification. The points that I have made are causes of the problem. Your assertion that society is highly mobile go against the reality of what is actually occurring.

The less stratified a society is, the smaller the smaller the social ladder is. That is logic by definition.
As long as children exist, there will always be stratification between parent and child. Less fit and more fit.
In the adult world, the objective is to diminish the level of stratification approaching non-existence of stratification.
Such an approach makes for a more progressive society. A society that cultivates humanity and the environment in harmony.


Simply because some people have more money than others does not equate to oppression. Am I oppressed because I do not have as much money as someone like John Kerry? I live a good life, vastly better than my counterparts of a century ago. In fact, as a member of the working class, my circumstances have improved much more than the circumstances of the wealthy have improved in that same century.

So what's the problem?
Let me first point out that we are not discussing previous centuries or making comparisons to various levels of oppression and standards of living. The fact that there are those that live under higher levels of oppression and lower standards of living than others does not negate the fact that such others are still oppressed.

Docile is the lack of acknowledgement that one is being oppressed. As I stated above.
Oppression is not a choice. You do not willfully choose to be oppressed.
You live a good life under a specific standard of living. There are others that live under far worse circumstances and others that live under far better circumstances. Therefore, what?
The problem as I stated is stratification. There may be slaves out there (human property of another human) that live better than you. It does not change the fact that they are slaves.
You might live under better circumstances than others. If you are serving those of higher circumstances in support of their higher circumstances, you are not in a progressive predicament. I would consider your predicament progressive when those with better circumstance than you are serving you. Sensibility is when those with more serve those with less. Not those with less serving those with more.



You appear to be transfering the discussion to embrace the larger problem of third world poverty. I simply cannot see that as a problem of class, rather it is a problem of culture. The solution demands the participation of those on every side of the cultural, religious and national divides.

Such third world cultures are no doubt far less progressive than many first world cultures. In fact a world stratification exists in which the wealth between cultres are vastly stratified.


I suggest my own experience of growing up in poverty and living and working in three of the world's largest capital cities (Jakarta, Mexico City, Cairo), replete with poverty, give me some understanding of the condition. So don't be tempted to take the moral high ground and lecture me on my supposed indifference to or lack of understanding of the condition.
No i haven't been to Africa, and no i dont live in a roufgh area, though it is like a fairly alright small oasis within a toughEr environment and then you have the inner city

i have worked for many years in factories--not now--and my friends have always been what i callin real people....people who haven't got much, do illegal drugs, and are not pretentious. though of course some can be complete arsehioles like anyone
Both ad-hominem. Our backgrounds personal backgrounds and experiences are completely irrelevant in this discussion.



America needs to redefine what we consider "basic needs" to include healthcare, food, housing and secondary education

Right. In our society, the rich and fit have more influence on government over the poor and unfit. This means that a rich person has far more ability to influence government than the poor. Therefore, the rich actually get more government assistance than the poor. This is corruption. Such as the rich usurping the property of the poor.
Here is a prime example: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46810



So, who is at fault?
The people.
Wrong. It is never the fault of the oppressed because the oppressed do not have the choice. Your oppression is never your willful choice. You cannot choose to be oppressed or not to be oppressed. It is your choice to accept your circumstance or attempt an escape. However, the one at fault is the one committing the act. If your boyfriend is beating you, you may or may not choose to call the police. You may or may not choose to seek exit from the relationship. Nonetheless, it is not your fault that he is beating you. You did not force him to do so, therefore, it is not your fault.

You are being abused. Whether you do something or not is one thing. But to claim that it is your fault for being abused is far fetched.



But it IS the peoples' fault.
Blaming it on Mass Media is what serves to avoid blame.
"It's not MY fault, the media lied to me. boo hoo." Bullshit!
People will only be manipulated if they allow it.
Again, you place the fault on the victim over those committing the act.


The manipulation of media is also a bullshit excuse because of far reaching information campaigns launched by countless groups.
I cannot believe that you actually believe that the media does not manipulate the individual for profit without regard to the individual. And furthermore, falling victim to such manipulation is easily avoidable. There is absolutely no reason to blame the individual for falling prey to media manipulation. Blaming the victim only takes the responsibility off of the aggressor.



It is hardly a secret that Nike uses sweat shops to produce their clothing.
Does that cause most people to boycott Nike?
Of course not.
Right. The motto of our society is: “Turn the blind eye.” Why is that the motto? Why do people continue to turn the blind eye to their own plights and to the plights of those less fortunate?
As long as those that are more fit are oppressing those that are less fit, and those that are less fit are oppressing those that are even less fit, social awareness will be suppressed.

Oppressors may not even be completely aware of what they are doing. There are many oppressors that outright know exactly what they are doing, and do it anyway. Such mobsters knowingly bully their way to the top. But the common oppressor has suppressed the ethics of his actions into his subconscious. There by turning the blind eye. Oppression and manipulation is so ingrained into society, those committing the acts are only mildly conscious of what they are doing. Because of their psychology, they never even stop to question their own actions.

The point is that the fault lies in those that are committing oppressive acts, and only those that are committing the acts. The fault lies in those that knowingly support them. Then there are those that are only mildly aware that they are supporting and contributing to oppression and manipulation. Such people may or may not have been victims of manipulation to do so. Therefore, such people may or may not be at fault.



How much they know is directly dependednt upon how much they WANT to know.

It is easier to not know and not care.
It makes life more convenient.
How much they want to know is dependent on the fit that oppress, manipulate, and control them.

We must be aware that we are being manipulated and oppressed.
We must be aware that we are supporting and contributing to manipulation and oppression.
Who is at fault?
Certainly it is those that are more fit, and using their fitness to control those that are less fit instead of serving those that are less fit.

I think the best way is mandatory education.

I think the best way is mandatory education.

Who decides what they're to study? And who is to enforce it all? And what if someone doesn't want to be educated? ...shoot him?

And is it necessary to educate those who work in the sewers and as garbage collectors?

Baron Max

http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/mexico/grfx/Image2.gif