Way better then Bob getting 10 $/hr and Julie 8 $/hr! Be poor and then tell me going to $15 minimum is not worth it just because some man would illegally (and has been illegal for decades) earn more simply for having a penis. You want the fix the wage gap, why not fix the wage gape of the rich and poor, of a corporate owner taking off dozens even hundreds of times the companies profits as his wage, compared to his lowest employee: is not 50,000% bigger then 77%, is that not the problem we need to address FIRST? No and no, prejudice and identity injustice is a SMALLER problem then economic injustice, we need to deal with the big problem first, at least to a degree to finance dealing with any of the smaller problems next. Its like a person comes into the hospital with finger cut off and your demanding that be dealt with first, despite the obvious gapping whole clean through the person heart! "Doctor how dare you, you are prejudice against fingers!, even if you do repair the hole in the heart, this person would live without a finger, the finger must come first!" With everyone having better wages, stable jobs, savings, education, they will be way better of then they are today, despite the supremacists still being around. In fact when we look at European countries that better social safety nets the rate of ignorant supremacists in their population is actually lower, so just a better social safety net and better funded education does reduce racism, sexism and bigotry. So your being pointless right now?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for our daughters. I asked you a question; don't worry, though, despite your best effort to evade, your misogyny made its point. I would say we need to address wage inequality, full stop. However, that becomes (sniff! waaah!) "identity politics", because nobody can be equal unless we give men their greater due, first. Quit erasing women. Seriously, dude, your hatred of women is defining. Do you understand? Bigotry defines the character you play. I mean, sure, I get that everyone wants their dose of fame and status; we're all human. But struggling to become an icon of hatred within your community is not what most would call admirable. Then again, nobody ever believed your bawling for bullies was any manner of altruism; your self-interest has been naked the whole time. Uh-huh. Because American society will die without masculine privilege? Your hatred of women is palpable. Ah, yes, a rising tide lifts all boats, but it's unfair to white men if they are oppressed by mere equality? Is that it? Try it this way: The best path to equality requires the maintenance of inequality. And here's the tricky part: There's a reason why only bigots buy into such stupid notions. How stupid are you, ElectricFetus, that you expect people to pretend that your seething hatred is somehow liberal? The only reason the human rights of woman are either/or, that we can either address economic injustice or prejudice but not both, is because your swindle needs it that way. And that's your problem; don't go trying to make it anyone else's. We can certainly believe you're as stupid as you present yourself.
lets try being honest for a change. its smaller to YOU and that's all you really care about; yourself. you don't give 2 shits about anyone else. which is why you think women being treated as hosts, objects, and less than human, people of color being gunned down by the police, and LGBTQ being driven to suicide are smaller than YOU getting the economic justice you feel you deserve. so no its not smaller, its just smaller to selfish prick like you who only wants whats best for himself. seriously how the fuck you end up as a liberal when you don't have a single shred of empathy. your analogy is shit because its based on your own selfish desires that you clearly being more important and better deserve to be taken care of first. your demand is if everyone has the flu but some people have stab wounds we should treat the flu first because that will help everyone.
Do you really not know? See, here's the way it works: • Connor and Tyrone were both born on March 17th in nearby neighborhoods - they became friends on the school bus. During high school they were both intelligent, creative and diligent students with an aptitude for sports. • Their friends threw a joint party for their 18th birthday. Unfortunately they both got caught with pot when the police show up on a noise complaint. (Joint party... get it? j/k) → Recognizing his scholarly ways and MPV status, Connor manages to avoid any consequences - in the name of giving him another chance... → Tyrone, despite his excellent grades and reputation as a star defensive end picks up a conviction but was given probation - in the name of giving him another chance... ↳ Connor and Tyrone discuss this a few times - ultimately, Connor sums it up - "Wow, tough break Tyrone..." • They both graduate on time and apply for work at Whitebread, Inc. - there's a box on the application form: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" → Title VII prohibits discrimination based on that box "except for convictions for felonies and first degree misdemeanors that are directly related to the specific job" - wink, wink... (1) → That box and Tyrone's first name have nothing to do with him not getting a call back... (2 & 3) → Connor receives a call and is hired into management - such a fine, upstanding youth - he deserves the opportunity... → Tyrone is persistent and eventually gets hired on at the Whitebread nightshift assembly line - everybody deserves an opportunity... ↳ Connor and Tyrone discuss this a few times - ultimately, Connor sums it up - "Wow, another tough break Tyrone..." • In a few years they find themselves together again at a party - Tyrone holds the same position he started at with Whitebread but discovers Connor is now senior management. Tyrone says "Good job Connor, lucky break too!" → Then, deja vu all over again - both are arrested for possession, this time coke. They each had exactly the same amount, just under a gram. In Connor's world cocaine comes as a white powder but Tyrone's neighborhood provides a yellow, "harder" form. → Since they both had the exact same amount of the exact same drug they both experienced the same consequences, right? Maybe in an alternate universe... (4) → Connor, being an upstanding citizen with a responsible job gets six months probation with automatic expungement of his record upon completion. → Tyrone, with a prior drug conviction and considering the nature of this offense - crack vs powder - pulls a nickel in the state pen. ↳ When Connor went to visit his old pal he brought a familiar refrain: "Wow Tyrone, you just can't catch a break! Why do you suppose that is?" Why do you suppose that is EF? How is your one-size-fits-all economic priority going to "fix" all these "bad breaks?" I don't think you understand the fundamental (no pun intended) mindset of those you would "appease." In their world, all humans are not created equal. You have white, straight, Christian men - then you have all the inferior forms: women, coloreds, faggots and heathens for example. Hell, you're inferior if you have a preexisting condition - you haven't lived the "good life": Alabama congressman: “People who lead good lives” don’t have preexisting conditions President Donald Trump may be desperate to score a legislative win with Trumpcare 2.0, but if members of his own party keep coming across as insensitive to the needs of the less fortunate, that will be increasingly difficult for him to do. Take Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama, who during an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Monday claimed that “people who lead good lives” don’t have to worry about dealing with pre-existing conditions — like a stroke, or heart problems or birth defects. As Brooks told Tapper: “My understanding is that (the new proposal) will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool. That helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now, those are the people — who’ve done things the right way — that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.” http://www.salon.com/2017/05/02/ala...-good-lives-dont-have-preexisting-conditions/ How does a $15 minimum wage overcome this idiocy? Should we just say "Oh, I see Mo. Thank you for sharing your wisdom, we'll all go live better lives now - no need for protection on my insurance..." Please do explain, EF... ------------------------------------------------------- With thanks to T for the format... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emplo...ns_with_criminal_records_in_the_United_States 2: Top 20 'Whitest' and 'Blackest' Names Studies of resumes have found that people with black-sounding names are less likely to get callbacks.http://abcnews.go.com/2020/top-20-whitest-blackest-names/story?id=2470131 3: Out of Trouble, but Criminal Records Keep Men Out of Work Of course, people rarely find out why they didn’t land a particular job. For the last several years, job applicants have vastly outnumbered job openings. Being fired from a previous job doesn’t help. And the issues that land people in legal trouble may also make them less attractive as applicants. But Ms. Pager, the Harvard sociologist, has found in her research that having a criminal record by itself is often a significant impediment. She repeated the experiment, sending pairs of “well-spoken, clean-shaven young men” to apply for 250 different jobs. http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/annals_sequencingdisadvantage.pdf In both cases, she found men who reported criminal convictions were about 50 percent less likely to receive a callback or a job offer. The difference was significantly larger in the black pairs than in the white pairs. White employers seemed to show more sympathy for the white applicants, Ms. Pager said, and most of the employers were white.https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/...iminal-records-keep-men-out-of-work.html?_r=0 4: How Crack Vs. Coke Sentencing Unfairly Targets Poor People Crack and cocaine may be nearly identical on a molecular level, but people who are charged with possession of just 1 gram of crack are given the same sentence as those found in possession of 18 grams of cocaine. This 18:1 sentencing disparity is actually an improvement from the previous sentencing gulf of 100:1, thanks to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, but as new research shows, any disparity unfairly targets crack users, who are more likely to be black, low-income and less educated.http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/drugs/crack-vs-coke-sentencing/
This is outrageous! How can this person not comprehend that a functioning heart is essential to having functioning fingers in the first place?! /not getting satire Edit: Also, do we know whether or not this person was wholly, or even partially, bionic?
Oh god I hate grading homeworks, finals weeks is hell, please entertain me people. Sure but we can't deal with all forms of wage inequality simultaneously, we need to triage and deal with the biggest inequality first, which is classicism, not sexism. The biggest problem also pays for dealing with all the others and finally not dealing with the biggest problem but instead focusing on the small ones results in alienating large amounts of the voting populace whom you deemed privileged and ignorable, and thus we see whites, white men, even white women, vote Trump. I'm asking to give EVERYONE a greater due, if some white men some how get more because of penis, that is a separate problem that should not be dealt with by telling ALL white men to go fuck themselves, because then they vote Trump. Quite erasing men, you tried, they voted in trump. You need to look at their concerns, their joblessness, their hopelessness, its is not all different from the impoverish uneducated women, who also voted majority for trump, combine all these concerns into one universal solution: tax the rich to provide social safety net. Don't do that, focus on women only, educated women no less, and you get Trump. And I should care? Hate me all you want I will get you and others to vote smarter next time. What? No because millions of poor people left in destitute will elect true horrors, trump is just the beginning, eventually the masses will revolt and if winning that war implement a dictatorship, probably a christian fundamentalist fascist state, will you still be talking about how the wage gap is the more important issue when they send you to the death camps in 2040? Pulling down the rich is not a rising tide, and again with these strawmen about white men and equality. Not all white men, in fact millions and millions of them, were not born with a silver spoon in there mouth, and were not bless with anything for being white and having a penis, when they ask for better jobs, healthcare and relief, just like women and blacks do, you and your ilks response is "fuck you your privileged!" so they turn around and vote Trump, you have only yourselves to blame for president trump. How is taxing the greatest inequality, that of the rich over the poor, maintenance of inequality? How is it even maintenance of any other inequality? Go ahead and fight the gender wage gap all you want, just don't forget class inequality must come first as a political agenda, certainly once we win back the government on the grounds of economic reform we can also do what ever it is you want for the gender wage gap... what by the way is your solution for the gender wage gap? Would you believe I enjoy gay furry porn? I think I get a kick out of people like you and your disbelief about me brought out by your prejudice and hate. It is not either/or, it is "either or not at all" it is either we put economic injustice first or we win nothing at all and lose everything to the republicans. Once elected I don't see why we can't do both, but not elected we can't do anything. Again pointless. Would you also believe I enjoy being slandered by you?
I'm pretty well off, I got a stable job that I like, I got a growing savings account, I starting up a small business for my inventions, you know what, your right, I only want to stave off total economic collapse and revolution so that the marching morons don't come and murder me. Yeah no, this is not about me, this is about the old man that was pumped my gas this morning at a full service gas station, he heard me listening to secular talk and we agree on the corruption of government, but then he went on about how trump is going to change it all, "Trump is not like the rest, trump is already rich so he can't be corrupted." I told him about putting goldman sachs in charge, "well those are the good ones, they are already rich too so they will care about the people" then he went off to smoke a cigarette. This old ignorant moron who should be retired, is instead pumping gas and washing windows, he deserve economic justice, at least then he might vote for us next time. Now you might say that he is selfish, but he comes by the millions, and vote by the millions.
or maybe it is a jews! Ok please tell me whose you are going to solve social injustice? Randwolf, Aaah another wall of text, boring, I got to get back to work.
My, that was a substantive rejoinder there EF - I lie thunderstruck, basking in the brilliance of your intellect...
So I updated their grades and the average they are getting before the final is 86% with a high of 95% and a low of 76%... what are they whining about? You got it backwards, even Tiassa say we need to deal with all simultaneously at best and if not then with what ever oppressed minority. It is the Tiassa's ilk wanting to triage social justice first, that is why we won the last election. Yeah I know, I did not even read any of it, I'm just that awesome. Really? by all means tell me how your going to deal with social injustice too, give me your how to fix racism and sexism plan and how with it we will win back the government. Come on. I gave you my plan: we focus on a tax the rich to finance social welfare, we win on that, we tax the rich improving everyone standard of living. Straight forward and simple... your plan is what?
Because your story happens to a tiny segment of the population while I'm talking about a story that happens to most: being poor and trying to make ends meet. My story that when ignore gets Trump elected. Your story is already ignored and will continue to be ignored as long as republicans are elected. Also because focusing on my priority will get people elected that will de-criminalize drugs preventing your story from happening again. Easy! By promoting a $15 minimum wage we can get enough votes to vote out or at least out number in congress such idiots. By promoting your "What about Tyrone" story we fail to get enough votes and get trump and a republican controlled government on every level filled with people that openly think the poor deserve suffering.
And since you have no actual morality nor policy let's prioritize this "story" out of existence - only expediency and appeasement are important. Edit to add: EF, this seems to be your "go to" logic - this or that issue or group is not large enough for concern. But, when you add them all together - the women, the minorities, the LGBTQ, the sick, etc... Pretty soon you have a real constituency. Not to mention the whole Martin Niemöller concept. Fixed... Now why would you say that? And how would you know? According to your logic we can't even mention the issue - it might offend all the poor wingnuts who would otherwise happily vote your way.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click if there is misery in all you hear and see from the people on TV. Yeah, actually. Well, we did just win a social revolution. And we did it by standing firm, together, with a coherent message and the law on our side. It also helped that gay men were involved, because at the end of the day we're still men. See, the thing is that every time the right wing tried to strike, more and more people recognized just how closely this issue really was to them. In the end, we had the business community, too. And the entertainment industry. The doctors and nurses and lawyers, and when the time came we also had the politicians. Give anybody with the law on their side that kind of support and, yes, they will win. We can do that for women. We can do that for people of color. I'm actually gobsmacked the way society is throwing for transgender, because it includes ways we won't throw down for women. But, you know, you'll notice the self-appointed bathroom police aren't in the men's room demanding to see each other's junk. None of this has any reason to get in the way of broader economic justice. That is to say, this either-or thing is your own invention. Think of it this way, and, sure, we can use the Rust Belt white working class, though they were hardly unique in this, but they are the key electoral demographic. We liberals want things like financial sustainability and wage security for workers, health care access, food security, quality educational access, addiction treatment, housing guarantees, mass transportation, clean air, and all that wonderful stuff for everyone. And, you know, sorry, we can't have it. Voters say so. What we get, in the end, are barely functional patchworking to appease consciences no longer able to look anywhere and not see the problem. In schools, for instance, this becomes problematic to identity politics when the white working class—who voted against school lunches for all because, hey if the white working class can afford to send their kids to school with lunches, you know?—sees poor minority kids getting food. I mean, white people, benefit, too, when public defenders' offices are properly funded, but, hell, that ain't happening. And part of the reason that doesn't happen, or the war on drugs didn't focus on treatment, and a whole bunch of other stuff that would have helped white people, too, was because it was seen as helping people of color. Meth in the nineties was preceded by meth in the eighties. Like opium at the turn of the twentieth century, or marijuana shortly thereafter, lawmakers didn't freak out about anything until white people started using it. And with opium, they went after Chinese immigrants and Chinese-Americans. With marijuana they went after Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and indigenous tribes. Cocaine, they went after black people. Meth, they went after hispanics, then bikers, and as more and more white people turned up in the way, that was when we got the botched-up MAPA in the late nineties. Opiates found their way into the midwestern white working class during the eighties, at least. Nobody did anything about it, because it was a war against drugs, not hippie love-fest on drugs. Needle exchanges in Pierce County, Washington, in fact, are looked upon as early pioneers in the successful models for addressing heroin addiction. They've been tremendously useful in HIV prevention and treatment resource access. And there were always racist sentiments in the arguments against, but more to the point, we see this pattern over and over again. Whatever was happening in the Rust Belt went bonkers in the twenty-first century, and nobody can explain why we were prescribing unhealthy dosages of opiates and opioids. The bit with Vicodin was ridiculous, but we can't blame the government; this came about under for-profit private regimes. The racepolitik is built in; the white working class has borne it the whole time. Whatever else is going on, we don't get the outcomes we do without these people. We don't get around to things until they're hurting white people; that's one of the lessons of American history. And we're in a period when that is all coming to bear, and as usual we are expected to pretend it is somehow unique. What are we going to do for white people? Same thing we would do for everyone else. But that's the thing; the question of white people, and white males in particular, stands out in our discussions because of your objections about other people. Your plan— —would maintain enforced stratification. One should not need to remind of what capitalists say about people making more money and inflation. So go ahead and do what you do and leave people behind as you will, and you will find you have accomplished no economic justice, but, hey, at least you got to stick it to women and nonwhites some more. What history teaches in racepolitik is that the white supremacist voice argues that it is being oppressed and diminished whenever it is not augmented. It's like the thought police bit; yes, one is free to think what they will, but translating that thought into action creates a different question, so refusing to hire someone for their skin color isn't a mere "thought crime". Or we could look at schools. No matter what we do to try to bring lagging schools up to par, there is always a faction that says it is unfair if the schools that are ahead aren't padded. The point of striving for equality, in some people's definition, is the maintenance of inequality. There are various ways of going about it, but raising the standard of living while enforcing exclusionary and disruptive discrimination is still enforcing exclusionary and disruptive discrimination. The problem is that equality results in objections from those who demand privilege. That's where the identity politics come from. Meanwhile, two points: I let it pass, before, because, you know, typos, but classicism is not the problem. Classism is the problem. But while we're on the subject of classism— —I need you to pay attention: • "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." (Communist Manifesto↱) ↳ The gender wage gap is class inequality. Sexism is classism. (To the other, if you prefer actual classicism, then one radical but enlightening take would be Norman O. Brown's application to Freudianism in Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytic Meaning of History. You'll need to acknowledge greater subtlety than you show in these discussions, but I think you'd probably find it a fascinating application of classicism.)
Or alternatively, you can fix wage equality and increase the minimum wage. Instead of labeling inequality as being "identity politics" and literally blaming the victims of inequality for election losses, you should perhaps consider addressing issues like income inequality as a primary platform for the party. Inequality and the prejudice that exists is the biggest problem you face, full stop. You will never, ever achieve economic equality, if you fail to deal with and rectify the injustices that permeates all sectors, be it in health, education, housing, employment, etc. I mean surely we do not have to explain how it is all connected, do we? You claim to be an educator of some sort (one can only hope it is not English or literature!), but you still fail to understand how discrimination and inequality are so intrinsically tied to classism? Your analogy is incorrect because the problem you face at present, is actually the other way around. Discrimination and inequality is the underlying pillar of economic inequality, EF. If you fail to deal with discrimination based on sex, race, religious ideology, sexuality, disability, then you will fail at dealing with economic inequality. Why? Because economic inequality happens when there is discrimination against others and if you cannot understand or acknowledge the discrimination and bigotry, then you will not be able to apply any fix to 'economic inequality'. No amount of your inane pleas to take from the rich to give to the poor, will work. Pushing money does not fix the problem. When blacks are being shot willy nilly by police, when women of all ethnic backgrounds are being denied their fundamental human rights to their own body, access to health care, access to equal pay, when minorities are denied access to housing, education, employment, that is not because they are poor. It is because of the discrimination that exists in society and within the realms of the Government and private industry. You think just giving black people, for example, more money is going to suddenly make things better? Are you really that naive? Their having more money will still not guarantee access to housing or a better education. Consider realtors who will not lease apartments or houses to minorities? Consider being more profiled by police constantly? Consider the discrepancy in how the justice system treats minorities compared to white people, regardless of their finances. Money does not fix these things. A better economy does not fix these things, because the discrimination that exists, will continue to negatively affect victims of bigotry, and that discrimination always leads to what you define as 'economic injustice'. Understand now? How are women going to have better wages or more stable jobs, when wage equality continues to be an underlying problem? How are minorities going to have better wages or more stable jobs, savings and access to better education, better housing, when they are passed over for jobs and housing because of their minority status? Are you even aware of just how pervasive housing discrimination happens to be and the forms it takes for minorities, women and LGBT? I am going to guess the answer to that is a no. Tell me, how is giving them more money, going to fix the fact that they are discriminated from getting a job or an apartment or house because they are women, Black, Muslim or Hispanic, for example, or LGBT? Consider housing discrimination and wealth disparity: Sociologists Thomas Shapiro and Jessica Kenty-Drane state that wealth disparities are also a result of housing discrimination, as housing discrimination acts as a barrier to homeownership. Homeowners may learn management and home repair skills, and the children of homeowners are less likely to drop out of high school or to have children as teenagers. Additionally, credit constraints limit homeownership for people with low income. Housing discrimination that keeps families from affordable loans and nicer areas with increasing property values keep victims from accumulating wealth.[13] Residential segregation also leads to generational wealth disparities. Children often inherit wealth from their parents, and if parents were forced into poor-quality housing because of housing discrimination, then there is less wealth to hand down.[2] Your solution is to just pay them more? Ermm okay. What if the reason they are kept out of a higher paying job or a job altogether, is because they are women or a minority or LGBT? What then? You think your "economy first" is going to benefit those who are the direct victims of this kind of discrimination? Actually, it isn't even a 'what if'. It is a "how", because this is the reality for women, minorities and LGBT in the US. Employment discrimination is even more glaring. Jump to page 58 onwards of this study, and look at the tables that show just how ridiculous discrimination is in the US when it comes to employment. Page 59 shows the wage disparity, and page 60 shows the sex, ethnicity disparity across many fields of employment. And you think just give them more money is going to fix it? Really? It comes down to you being really stupid, or a bigot who wants to preserve the status quo and ensure your financial advancement at the expense of the fundamental rights of everyone else. Which is it?
So you just choose to ignore the problems European countries have in regards to discrimination against women and minorities and how that discrimination is reflected in regards to poverty, as it is everywhere else in the world? What is known is that discrimination causes poverty. Gender wage discrimination in EU countries and how it is tied to poverty: The results show that, in general, discrimination against women plays a determinative role in the current levels of poverty in EU countries, although results by country show that this role differs in intensity and pattern. Further, the study finds that in EU countries the effect of discrimination on poverty risk dramatically increases for individuals in households that largely depend on working women' earnings. How discrimination affects levels of poverty in EU countries: Some people imagine that in a rich region like the EU no one can be poor or if they are it must be the result of some personal failings or problems. However, this is not the case. The overall persistent high level of poverty in the EU suggest that poverty is primarily the consequence of the way society is organised and resources are allocated, whether these are financial or other resources such as access to housing, health and social services, education and other economic, social and cultural services. Indeed, the fact that there are very different levels of poverty in different Member States demonstrates clearly that different approaches to allocating resources and opportunities leads to different outcomes. The least unequal societies in Europe tend to have the lowest levels of poverty. This is primarily because these Governments chooses to give priority to ensuring adequate minimum income levels and ensuring good access to services, through the social protection system and through guaranteeing minimum wage levels. They are usually the most effective at redistributing wealth through the tax and other systems. This means that the decisions over how to eradicate poverty in the end are political choices about the kind of society we want. Key factors In terms of individuals, some key factors are seen as making a person more at risk of being in poverty such as: unemployment or having a poor quality (i.e. low paid or precarious) job as this limits access to a decent income and cuts people off from social networks; low levels of education and skills because this limits people's ability to access decent jobs to develop themselves and participate fully in society; the size and type of family i.e. large families and lone parent families tend to be at greater risk of poverty because they have higher costs, lower incomes and more difficulty in gaining well paid employment; gender - women are generally at higher risk of poverty than men as they are less likely to be in paid employment, tend to have lower pensions, are more involved in unpaid caring responsibilities and when they are in work, are frequently paid less ; disability or ill-health because this limits ability to access employment and also leads to increased day to day costs; being a member of minority ethnic groups such as the Roma and immigrants/undocumented migrants as they suffer particularly from discrimination and racism and thus have less chance to access employment, often are forced to live in worse physical environments and have poorer access to essential services; living in a remote or very disadvantaged community where access to services is worse. All these factors create additional barriers and difficulties, but should be seen within the overall structural context of how a particular country chooses to distribute wealth and tackle inequality. "Discrimination and inequality, from a human rights perspective": The relationship between discrimination and poverty is overwhelmingly evident in developed as well as in developing countries. As the UN Committee on Racial Discrimination has recognized, in the US, “racial, ethnic, and national minorities, especially Latino and African American persons, are disproportionately concentrated in poor residential areas characterised by sub-standard housing conditions, limited employment opportunities, inadequate access to health care facilities, under-resourced schools, and high exposure to crime and violence.”[xxvi]The US Census reported that in 2009, 25 percent of black people and people of Hispanic origin live below poverty level, compared to 14 percent of people of all races.[xxvii] Racial and ethnic minorities have long been disproportionately represented in the US criminal justice system.[xxviii]While accounting for only 13 percent of the US population, African Americans represent 28.4 percent of all arrests. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics approximately 3.1 percent of African American men, 1.3 percent of Latino men, and 0.5 percent of white men are in prison.[xxix]Because they are disproportionately likely to have criminal records, members of racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than whites to experience stigma and legal discrimination in employment, housing, education, public benefits, jury service, and the right to vote.[xxx] In Europe, Roma are among the poorest as well as being among the most discriminated against.[xxxi]In Bosnia and Herzegovina for instance,Human Rights Watch documented pervasive discrimination against Roma and other national minorities in the constitution, national laws, and public institutions.[xxxii]This research shows the wider impact of discrimination on the daily lives of Roma in accessing housing, education, health care, and employment. Understand now? Do you now understand how poverty and wealth disparity is so closely linked to and cause by discrimination first and foremost? It's not just about paying them more. You cannot pay someone more if their sex, ethnicity or sexuality prevents them from being hired due to discriminatory practices that are entrenched in all levels of society. Your repeated assertions that this is just identity politics simply tries to ignore the realities of poverty and wealth disparity and income disparity.
He might "deserve" economic justice, but, traditionally speaking, that makes you an elitist. Then again, as you pretend to be a practiced liberal, you already knew that. You just didn't account for it because ... why? I mean, that's kind of an important factor to account for in your pretense of economic justice, and here you are, blithely pretending around the challenges of history as if you don't actually know your history. That "old ignorant moron who should be retired"? Who "deserves economic justice"? Yeah, you know, people have been trying for a long, long time, and maybe at some point he should have voted for them, instead of making excuses like pretending the rich can't be corrupt. Do you know how many of those workers who deserve economic justice voted against themselves? It would be one thing if you wanted to argue history. But you don't. You just make shit up and remind everyone that when it comes to liberals and liberalism you don't actually have a clue what you're on about. Here, let's try it this way: Do you remember Michael Moore's book, Dude, Where's My Country? There is a chapter called, "Horatio Alger Must Die". Mr. Moore discusses a phenomenon you seem unable to comprehend. Tom Tomorrow tried explaining seven years later, using the phrase, "Tea & Crumpets Party": Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thus, to review your "plan": • "We focus on a tax the rich to finance social welfare, we win on that, we tax the rich improving everyone standard of living. Straight forward and simple ..." ↳ ... and not yet successful in American history; generally speaking, the privileged argument reminds that we're getting there while everyone else points out we've been saying that for decades. For some reason, you think people haven't been trying. Not that you can explain that reason, else you would have, but it's pretty apparent the problem is you're sold to a false narrative whereby the problem with achieving justice is that people won't settle for injustice. Truth is, there are plenty of people who will settle for injustice; you, for instance. For other people, dealing with economic stratification first, not racism or sexism, is nothing more than the same promise all over again, that if women and people of color are just patient and diligent and obedient enough, everything will work out in the end. And, hell, dude, they ain't as stupid as you want them to be: They already know that promise is bullshit. Society has pretended to try it before. As I said Monday↑: • What is an insult to women and minorities is yet another round of blithe promises predicated on appeasing the influences that would prevent the rising tide of economic justice from lifting their boats. And I even reminded you↑ of that point. Once upon a time we used to hear the argument that raising incomes too quickly was cruel to the workers, because it would cause inflation. And part of that is true, but part of that truth is what proportion of market fluctuation is driven by psychology. It's not so much that it's a Prisoner's Dilemma of sorts, but, rather, that nobody seems anxious to change it. Honest, cooperative business, as such, is a lot like honest, cooperative politics: The risk exposure in participating comes from the holdouts. We all see the problem. It's just that nobody really seems to want to change it. To the other, our solution as a political society—especially in conservative quarters—is that the discussion simply shouldn't get that far. No, really, that's why we don't hear much about it, anymore; the discussion in the mainstream isn't getting that far. Still, though, if the standard of living inflates with the raises, you still haven't achieved economic justice by your "plan" specifically because it is designed to leave people out. It's kind of like conservatives complaining that Obamacare didn't cover everyone; conservatives didn't want it to, sought to prevent it from covering everyone, and have no intention of covering everyone under their own so-called plan. Universal coverage and attendance is as possible as sending human beings to the moon and back; our society simply needs to decide to do it. But we won't. So we don't. As such, the political compromise is to design and implement plans that intend to leave people out. And your "plan" requires that we leave people out. Now, you can sputter and flail apoplectically pretending to not know what that means, but that depends on how insistently you intend to demand supremacists define reality. That is to say, as long as justice and equality for all is a matter of identity politics that you denounce, your "plan" won't magically eliminate racism and sexism. Think of it this way: It's not all just money. There's this guy I know, can't quite call him a friend, but, you know, whatever. You should have seen him go off. I mean cold, sniffing, quaking, prim rage. And his whole point was to try to intimidate a woman into shutting up; what pissed him off so badly was the idea that if he decides to sidle up to a woman and hit on her, she has a right to her own feelings about this. In the end, all he demands is that her existential condition is subject to his authority. And no, he can't have that. No matter what, he can't; he can fuck right the hell off. It's not a matter of identity politics; as long as people think they can treat each other that way, my liberal values are going to disagree, and if that makes them uncomfortable, good. Treating people so poorly should never be comfortable. And that, too, lends to this weird right-wing narrative by which mere equality is both radical identity politic and genocidal spectre. There is a reason why the "alt-right" demonstrates lexical and behavioral overlap with MRAs, GamerGaters, mgtow, and other psychologically indisposed supremacists. Why do you think they need words like "snowflake"↗ and "sjw"↗? At any rate, hey, do you know the old joke about the difference between a slut and a bitch? So, like, right; I've already mentioned the rural, white, working class, conservative white dudes having sex with one another as affirmations of their heterosexual masculinity, but there also occurs to mind a group of Same-Sex Attracted Men and Their Wives↱, who argued that gay marriage would denigrate their own marriages to women because ... well ... that's the thing. As near as anyone can tell, we are supposed to believe none of these men, their wives, nor their lawyer could understand that legalization of gay marriage somehow required gay men to marry one another. Or prevents them from being married to women. Or ... well, that's just it. They really did seem to complain about their own beliefs. I can't give these men enough of a raise to assuage their fear. Nor can I convince conspiracist Seventh-Day Adventists that liberals aren't the ones pushing National Sunday Law↱ raising the question of National Sunday Law. No, really, just walking right into it. Talk about smaller groups. These are among those you satisfy by excluding women from your "plan". And you can't buy them off with "economic justice".
