First of all, if you reread my post carefully you will see the phrase "less morally corrupt" preceding the presidents I list. Let's put Bush and Obama aside for the moment as the debate about Bush is so partisan and I haven't made up my mind about Obama yet. I'm not trying to put any of them at the level of genocidiers or call them fascist or anything like that. However, it is an indisputable fact that America/American Presidents have in the past backed extremely corrupt, evil dictators in order to gain more influence in a region (and done other heinous things like lie about the Gulf of Tonkin or any number of other incidences). That's where the similarity is: whether it is a maniacal dictator exterminating a race or a US president backing a regime that goes on to murder thousands or millions of its own people, either way, in the pursuit of power and domain for oneself and one's political machine you have committed atrocities and made the world that much worse. I'd say there's a good argument we could do without that sort of leader.
Re: the rest of your comment, what do you think of these figures? It seems to me federal welfare in the US works pretty efficiently. Anyway, I would wager that corporate welfare poses a much larger threat to America than the more or less necessary social welfare programs. (I don't really see that the rest there is on topic, but maybe I missed something.)
I mean, the Hitlers, Stalins, Husseins, Mugabes down to the (less morally corrupt) Bushs and Teddy Roosevelts and Lyndon Johnsons and (fill in another Democrat here... there are plenty more from both parties). You know, the people that have the power to and choose to fuck the world up for their own personal gain. Certain arguments as to the worthlessness of those people hold water. It's one thing to call them worthless, because their deeds have negative value (worth) to everyone else on Earth. They condemn themselves by choosing to restrict others' right to Liberty and self sovereignty. It's an entirely different thing to call someone trash because they don't meet your standards of acceptable social norms and then, to add insult to injury, conflate their lifestyle choices with their background (and at the same time denigrate everyone who shares their background).
If you have to resort to this kind of obvious twisting of words, I see no need to continue this discussion. Grow up. Learn some compassion and debate skills.
That's just not the way it works. (I love that people will defend their use of denigrating terms as if they can't just admit that they are more or less mean spirited bigots.) Don't call people trash. If anyone is worthless it's the people at the top, not the people at the bottom.
(I wasn't calling you racist; I don't think we need to go into the can of worms that is the use of "niggah" when certain black people refer to themselves that way.)
Personally I think that anyone who tries to act "gangster" is immature and annoying, regardless of their skin colour (and there's even a word to describe white people who act like that: "wigger").
You're entitled to your opinion, however baseless, but you don't have the right to choose someone's life for them. Because someone acts in a way you find immature or annoying doesn't make it acceptable to equate them with trash! We are all human; not all of us can "contribute to society" (as if most accountants, lawyers, CEOs, hell even programmers contribute to much more than fattening their own wallets). Even still, it's not like there aren't G's or people in trailer parks that aren't contributing to society or art or business or their families, etc. (Plus, "wigger" is another hateful word, if only because of it's obvious etymology.) Saying you don't mean "trailer trash" to be bigoted and ignorant is kind of like calling all women cunts and not understanding why women get offended even though you mean it as a compliment... it doesn't let you off the hook for the literal meaning of the words that you speak.
Ok, there's a difference between living in a trailer and living in a run-down trailer surrounded by 3-foot weeds because you're too indifferent to maintain your property.
A difference that makes their lives essentially worthless? Nope. Lifestyle is mostly subjective, and we all have a right to live our lives how we please as long as we aren't messing that right up for other people. Like I said, you certainly have a right to look down on people whose lifestyle you disagree with, if that's what you want to do, but calling them "trash" is crossing the line.
If you're seriously arguing that "trailer trash" doesn't imply that someone is trash (literally worthless) because of their background (living in a trailer), well... I'm not sure what you think "trailer trash" means.
However, if someone lives in a trailer, never attempts to better their situation, and in fact lets their home rot away into disrepair, they probably need to get off their ass (be it white or otherwise) and make an effort.
And if they don't you feel justified in equating them with worthless trash? Because they live in a trailer and don't mind or don't care? That's what you are implying at least.
Yes "trailer trash" is pretty well defined to denigrate people as worthless because of where they live and/or how they choose to live.
If a black person says "nigger", nobody blinks twice. If a white person utters the word, everyone cringes and most people automatically take offense.
That's not really relevant here... when you use that word to denigrate blacks for their skin color, you are doing nearly the same thing as when you call someone "trailer trash" or "hood rat" or whatever. You are denigrating someone based on a superficial and/or subjective element of their character. While you might disagree with someone's life style, that's certainly your right, but to call someone trash or worthless is extreme, divisive, and hateful.
You remind me of someone, and while I won't make a direct comparison, this is a line of thinking that I find quite ugly. Basically, this is the line of thinking that leads people to say things like "not all black people are niggers" or other crap like that. Don't call people trash. Don't denigrate people based on their background or skin color or sex, etc. etc. etc.
There's no reason to only drink water all the time. When I buy juice, which isn't often because of all the sugar, I drink 4oz servings (so 15g sugars). Works for me!
Actually, they are sneaky about the added sugar. Bottles marked "100% juice" will have no added sugars. If you look closely at other "juices" you will notice they say "juice cocktail," "juice drink," "juice product," or "contains juice." Sometimes it will be more like "JUICE *cough*cocktail*cough*." I believe they are required by law not to straight up call it "juice" if they add anything to it. You can just barely make it out in this picture.
Of course I wasn't suggesting eating a whole bag of carrots instead of a bag of chips:D I'm saying that fresh vegetables should be far cheaper for the amount of nutrition you get. You need calories, but there are a wide variety of ways to get them. I would imagine that simply comparing price per calorie is not going to lead to a very healthy diet at all. It would be pretty cheap to drink straight corn syrup, but I doubt you would be able to do much at all after several weeks of that!!
Hm. That's a good point. (Although, a salty can of beans is far better for you than a bag of chips.) On the other hand, there are alternatives... say soaking beans over night and putting them in a slow cooker in the morning. That way you can have as much beans (or rice) as you want ready after you get off work (takes 6-8 hours). An electrical outlet timer works well here. Families shouldn't have any problem using at least some veges. 3 or 4 people should be able to go through a standard bag size of vegetables in 2 to 3 days. Slicing zucchini and throwing it in a pan with oil and salt and pepper takes about 5 minutes.
So, I think you're right in a way: it's not necessarily easy for people to find classes or cookbooks that teach some basic cooking skills and easier to get access to fresh healthy food, or even canned, frozen, or dried healthy food. Personally, I think we all work too much, especially the working poor and it would be nice to go back to the tempo of a few decades ago in that regard. America has forgotten how to cook in those few decades... will it take that long to learn again?
I think this is a fallacy, but maybe the prices where I live are quite different. Here, a bag of whole carrots is about $1.20, while a bag of Doritos or other chips is 99 cents. By both weight and density of nutrition, the carrots are hugely cheaper than Doritos. Or say, chicken here is often around $3 or $4 a pound, again both by weight and nutrition density a far better deal than what you would get for 3 or 4 bags of chips. Are veges really super expensive where you live compared to say chips and soda, or is it that people are forgetting how to cook and not stepping up to the plate (har) when it comes to their children's health?
Dude, labels are great. Small labels are great I mean. It's nice to have smaller organizations that can bring together artists in the common cause of some vision or style or sound. Also they are good because they will have producers who understand the particular niche of that label. Anyone can put out a demo, but you really need to work with someone who is good at production and mastering to get that professional sound (not style wise, but audio quality wise). Plus, a label can support its own studio, bringing down the cost of production and recording.
The label is still a great model, not necessary all the time, but certainly with its own benefits. The great thing is that so many independent labels and artists are springing up everywhere. This is what's going to bring the major labels to their knees! A flood of creative, independent music without any centralized, tyrannical masters at the reigns. It's happening right now!!
I wonder if this has anything to do with my state government, along with two other states, threatening to sue Craiglist if they didn't start screening that section of the site. For the life of me, I can't understand why that is a better solution than prostitutes advertising their services in public. Wouldn't it be really easy to set up a sting for people who are basically advertising their willingness to provide paid sex services? I mean, they're right there practically donning bull's-eyes!
You really think I'm a paranoiac? Hmm. Ok, after way too much research I can offer for comparison: California's 2008 revenue was ~$130 billion while Disney's 2008 revenue was ~$38 billion. So, Cali has roughly 3.4 times the revenue of Disney. If we say money = power... does that mean disney has ~1/3 as much power as California? I dunno exactly. Food for thought anyway. Thanks for catching me though. I was thinking big corps. were making way more than that:-)
Well, on the other hand we have Wal*Mart's 2008 revenue of ~$379 billion. Roughly 3 times the revenue of California. Compare that to, say, Missouri's 2008 revenue of ~$35 billion and take what you want from the order of magnitude difference. Hmm... well maybe I'll keep this shiny hat around just in case!
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, if you reread my post carefully you will see the phrase "less morally corrupt" preceding the presidents I list. Let's put Bush and Obama aside for the moment as the debate about Bush is so partisan and I haven't made up my mind about Obama yet. I'm not trying to put any of them at the level of genocidiers or call them fascist or anything like that. However, it is an indisputable fact that America/American Presidents have in the past backed extremely corrupt, evil dictators in order to gain more influence in a region (and done other heinous things like lie about the Gulf of Tonkin or any number of other incidences). That's where the similarity is: whether it is a maniacal dictator exterminating a race or a US president backing a regime that goes on to murder thousands or millions of its own people, either way, in the pursuit of power and domain for oneself and one's political machine you have committed atrocities and made the world that much worse. I'd say there's a good argument we could do without that sort of leader.
Re: the rest of your comment, what do you think of these figures? It seems to me federal welfare in the US works pretty efficiently. Anyway, I would wager that corporate welfare poses a much larger threat to America than the more or less necessary social welfare programs. (I don't really see that the rest there is on topic, but maybe I missed something.)
I mean, the Hitlers, Stalins, Husseins, Mugabes down to the (less morally corrupt) Bushs and Teddy Roosevelts and Lyndon Johnsons and (fill in another Democrat here... there are plenty more from both parties). You know, the people that have the power to and choose to fuck the world up for their own personal gain. Certain arguments as to the worthlessness of those people hold water. It's one thing to call them worthless, because their deeds have negative value (worth) to everyone else on Earth. They condemn themselves by choosing to restrict others' right to Liberty and self sovereignty. It's an entirely different thing to call someone trash because they don't meet your standards of acceptable social norms and then, to add insult to injury, conflate their lifestyle choices with their background (and at the same time denigrate everyone who shares their background).
DEVELOPMENT
-----------
Vista
If you have to resort to this kind of obvious twisting of words, I see no need to continue this discussion. Grow up. Learn some compassion and debate skills.
That's just not the way it works. (I love that people will defend their use of denigrating terms as if they can't just admit that they are more or less mean spirited bigots.) Don't call people trash. If anyone is worthless it's the people at the top, not the people at the bottom.
I can still hate that phrase! :)
Personally I think that anyone who tries to act "gangster" is immature and annoying, regardless of their skin colour (and there's even a word to describe white people who act like that: "wigger").
You're entitled to your opinion, however baseless, but you don't have the right to choose someone's life for them. Because someone acts in a way you find immature or annoying doesn't make it acceptable to equate them with trash! We are all human; not all of us can "contribute to society" (as if most accountants, lawyers, CEOs, hell even programmers contribute to much more than fattening their own wallets). Even still, it's not like there aren't G's or people in trailer parks that aren't contributing to society or art or business or their families, etc. (Plus, "wigger" is another hateful word, if only because of it's obvious etymology.) Saying you don't mean "trailer trash" to be bigoted and ignorant is kind of like calling all women cunts and not understanding why women get offended even though you mean it as a compliment... it doesn't let you off the hook for the literal meaning of the words that you speak.
Ok, there's a difference between living in a trailer and living in a run-down trailer surrounded by 3-foot weeds because you're too indifferent to maintain your property.
A difference that makes their lives essentially worthless? Nope. Lifestyle is mostly subjective, and we all have a right to live our lives how we please as long as we aren't messing that right up for other people. Like I said, you certainly have a right to look down on people whose lifestyle you disagree with, if that's what you want to do, but calling them "trash" is crossing the line.
However, if someone lives in a trailer, never attempts to better their situation, and in fact lets their home rot away into disrepair, they probably need to get off their ass (be it white or otherwise) and make an effort.
And if they don't you feel justified in equating them with worthless trash? Because they live in a trailer and don't mind or don't care? That's what you are implying at least.
Yes "trailer trash" is pretty well defined to denigrate people as worthless because of where they live and/or how they choose to live.
If a black person says "nigger", nobody blinks twice. If a white person utters the word, everyone cringes and most people automatically take offense.
That's not really relevant here... when you use that word to denigrate blacks for their skin color, you are doing nearly the same thing as when you call someone "trailer trash" or "hood rat" or whatever. You are denigrating someone based on a superficial and/or subjective element of their character. While you might disagree with someone's life style, that's certainly your right, but to call someone trash or worthless is extreme, divisive, and hateful.
You remind me of someone, and while I won't make a direct comparison, this is a line of thinking that I find quite ugly. Basically, this is the line of thinking that leads people to say things like "not all black people are niggers" or other crap like that. Don't call people trash. Don't denigrate people based on their background or skin color or sex, etc. etc. etc.
There's no reason to only drink water all the time. When I buy juice, which isn't often because of all the sugar, I drink 4oz servings (so 15g sugars). Works for me!
Plus, this view of life is why your girlfriend is a wadded-up kleenex.
Daaaaaaaaaammmmmnnnnnnnnnnn!
Don't call people trash. It's bigoted and ignorant. Living in a trailer doesn't make your life worthless.
Don't forget nutrition! It matters where you get your calories. Eating 2k calories of table sugar or lard would not be... good for you ;)
FYI that's partly how my dad got diabetes...
Actually, they are sneaky about the added sugar. Bottles marked "100% juice" will have no added sugars. If you look closely at other "juices" you will notice they say "juice cocktail," "juice drink," "juice product," or "contains juice." Sometimes it will be more like "JUICE *cough*cocktail*cough*." I believe they are required by law not to straight up call it "juice" if they add anything to it. You can just barely make it out in this picture.
Of course I wasn't suggesting eating a whole bag of carrots instead of a bag of chips :D I'm saying that fresh vegetables should be far cheaper for the amount of nutrition you get. You need calories, but there are a wide variety of ways to get them. I would imagine that simply comparing price per calorie is not going to lead to a very healthy diet at all. It would be pretty cheap to drink straight corn syrup, but I doubt you would be able to do much at all after several weeks of that!!
Hm. That's a good point. (Although, a salty can of beans is far better for you than a bag of chips.) On the other hand, there are alternatives... say soaking beans over night and putting them in a slow cooker in the morning. That way you can have as much beans (or rice) as you want ready after you get off work (takes 6-8 hours). An electrical outlet timer works well here. Families shouldn't have any problem using at least some veges. 3 or 4 people should be able to go through a standard bag size of vegetables in 2 to 3 days. Slicing zucchini and throwing it in a pan with oil and salt and pepper takes about 5 minutes.
So, I think you're right in a way: it's not necessarily easy for people to find classes or cookbooks that teach some basic cooking skills and easier to get access to fresh healthy food, or even canned, frozen, or dried healthy food. Personally, I think we all work too much, especially the working poor and it would be nice to go back to the tempo of a few decades ago in that regard. America has forgotten how to cook in those few decades... will it take that long to learn again?
I think this is a fallacy, but maybe the prices where I live are quite different. Here, a bag of whole carrots is about $1.20, while a bag of Doritos or other chips is 99 cents. By both weight and density of nutrition, the carrots are hugely cheaper than Doritos. Or say, chicken here is often around $3 or $4 a pound, again both by weight and nutrition density a far better deal than what you would get for 3 or 4 bags of chips. Are veges really super expensive where you live compared to say chips and soda, or is it that people are forgetting how to cook and not stepping up to the plate (har) when it comes to their children's health?
Dude, labels are great. Small labels are great I mean. It's nice to have smaller organizations that can bring together artists in the common cause of some vision or style or sound. Also they are good because they will have producers who understand the particular niche of that label. Anyone can put out a demo, but you really need to work with someone who is good at production and mastering to get that professional sound (not style wise, but audio quality wise). Plus, a label can support its own studio, bringing down the cost of production and recording.
The label is still a great model, not necessary all the time, but certainly with its own benefits. The great thing is that so many independent labels and artists are springing up everywhere. This is what's going to bring the major labels to their knees! A flood of creative, independent music without any centralized, tyrannical masters at the reigns. It's happening right now!!
I wonder if this has anything to do with my state government, along with two other states, threatening to sue Craiglist if they didn't start screening that section of the site. For the life of me, I can't understand why that is a better solution than prostitutes advertising their services in public. Wouldn't it be really easy to set up a sting for people who are basically advertising their willingness to provide paid sex services? I mean, they're right there practically donning bull's-eyes!
Yes, yes. A poorly executed joke is WOOOOOOSHing over peoples' heads. Obviously my efforts here have been wasted.
WHOOOOOOOOSH
the joke is that if you put windows in ships they would leak and fill the ship with water.
WHOOOOOOOOSH
Windows... in ships...
ba dum-bum.
Nintendo says Wii is not sold at a loss (or so I hear). PS3 is sold at a loss.
You really think I'm a paranoiac? Hmm. Ok, after way too much research I can offer for comparison: California's 2008 revenue was ~$130 billion while Disney's 2008 revenue was ~$38 billion. So, Cali has roughly 3.4 times the revenue of Disney. If we say money = power... does that mean disney has ~1/3 as much power as California? I dunno exactly. Food for thought anyway. Thanks for catching me though. I was thinking big corps. were making way more than that :-)
Well, on the other hand we have Wal*Mart's 2008 revenue of ~$379 billion. Roughly 3 times the revenue of California. Compare that to, say, Missouri's 2008 revenue of ~$35 billion and take what you want from the order of magnitude difference. Hmm... well maybe I'll keep this shiny hat around just in case!