Jump to content

Johann

Member
  • Posts

    2,420
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Johann

  1. 1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

    I said earlier that any side can generalize another one. I would have originally said that the only difference was that one group had a choice and the other didn't, but one can legally change their nationality and there are ways to medically alter ones gender, and didn't want to deal with the arguments that came from that.

    I don't really have much to add that you haven't said already, aside from republicans and police not being the only groups that have power that they have used and abused. And that one can be a part of a group without agreeing with every idea they supposedly represent.

    If you don't wanna deal with arguments, then don't bother talking. You're kinda showing your ass a bit with this.

    That there are other groups with similar power structures is obvious and doesn't need to be said. That a member of these groups can disagree with the consensus of that group is also obvious but misses the point that by still being a part of that group, they are enabling or supporting the group's ideas by virtue of providing the group itself with more power. For instance, it doesn't mean shit if a person disagrees with what Donald Trump does or says while still votes for him, as they are still an essential part of how Trump is granted power.

    1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

    I see what you are getting at. I don't entirely agree, as there are people who know themselves well enough to state their virtues and vices just as there are people who believe they are nobler than they truly are. Of course, this depends heavily on the individual, and it is not obvious to determine this at first glance.

    How trite. I'll say it again: You don't get to be your own judge.

    1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

    That is more or less my question. There are criticisms about white privilege all throughout this thread, yet few propositions on what the the people supposedly benefiting from these systems should be doing about it...

    ...aside from this. I know this is how such systems are combated, but my question is what do you believe people who are supposedly part of these systems in the meantime should do with their "privileges" that don't fall into "protest"?

    What, do you mean like turn down a job offer or something? That wouldn't accomplish anything since you don't know who else is up for the job, let alone their race. If you have privilege, you use it to do all those things I listed with greater efficacy than those who do not.

    1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

    I mentioned earlier that things that sound like weak excuses in one field can be legitimate issues in a different one. Robin Walker mentioned it an interview that there was an idea to make some of the cast females, but the team wasn't happy with the compromise, as the felt there was a "right way" to go about with the idea, yet in the end other aspects of development took priority. The memory issues and having to account for all the updates the game received over the years is likely the reason female versions of the characters haven't been added

    The main point is that adding diversity isn't always as easy as it sounds when every factor of game creation is taken into account. It should definitely be a goal, but no product can do everything they set out to do.

    They ultimately didn't want to do it and the excuse you cited confirms that. You don't need to defend it. We're done talking about this.

    1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

    Defeatist if politics is the be all, end all of change. It isn't to me. Small, everyday actions create ripples that have far reaching impacts. It does not happen overnight, and their effects are not immediately noticeable, yet they can cause change, whether for good or ill.

    By all means, keep telling yourself you're making a positive change in the world when you're doing nothing.

  2. 13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    Yes. Blame the sweeping generalizations both sides have made about the other and the difficulty of finding a middle ground for that. Especially when I've seen how off most of said generalizations are with my own eyes.

    I hope you read the rest of what I wrote there, was hoping more for a direct response to that. Republicans and the police are not demographics (as black people, women, etc, are), but organized groups that require a consensus on their thinking and methods to exist at all. A person can't be a member of those organized groups without at least endorsing the prevailing ideology of that group in some way.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    So you are basically saying "Everyone is prejudiced, lives in a prejudiced system, and it is unavoidable to be prejudiced no matter what"? Perhaps as human beings it is unavoidable not to notice another skin color, but we also have the ability to choose for that not to influence our decisions. The thoughts may pop to our head without us wanting to, but nothing forces us to listen to it. 

    No, not at all, and I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. Let me explain it again: People have subconscious biases that they might not be aware of. Saying "I don't see race" is to assume that you don't have any prejudices whatsoever, and ignore criticism if someone points out that you do. Failing to address any prejudices you may have perpetuates those prejudices and whatever impacts that may come about as a result of that. With that in mind, if you're not prejudiced, you don't have to announce it to the world, because it'll be clear if yo are to the people who are observing your actions. You don't get to be your own judge.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    Also, what do you propose the common citizen to do to avoid benefiting from these "racist" systems? Would a white person get anywhere by asking their professor or teacher to take the exact same test as the black person? Or to request during a job interview not consider their race? We don't get to choose the circumstances we are born with, but we can choose what to do with the resources we are given. Some use these opportunities prudently, others squander it, yet we can always decided how to react to whatever life throws our way.

    I agree that these systems should be changed to make the playing field even. Yet while the common citizen can advocate for a change, it ultimately it is up to law makers to create the laws. Even then, enforcement of said laws won't always be fair, as mentioned a few times on this thread. I doubt anyone chooses to be part of a supposedly unequal system, yet that does not prevent people from being able to treat others equally and respectfully, regardless of race and position.

    I'm not sure if you're intending it to sound this way, but your question reads as "what are white people supposed to do, throw away their advantages? Lower themselves to the setbacks of black people?" The real aim is equity-- bringing the underprivileged up to the level of the privileged, not the other way around. People can vote, protest, support groups/movements that work against racist systems, educate themselves, pressure politicians and companies to understand and address these things, it's a long list. Basically everything about the the civil rights and BLM movements.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    It's also common for history to be twisted so that certain groups and people look less or more villainous or heroic, and to exaggerate or downplay certain actions that took place. Sometimes this done because there is only so much you can put into a product in the case of things such as movies, video games, and books, as well as studios having to account for the age rating. Even then, they aren't except from from doing what anyone can do; twist the past to fit their own views for their own ends. Any side can do it. It is why critical thinking, awareness, and research as so vital when discussing history.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for here. "Historical accuracy" in video games is just a dogwhistle. There's little expectation for realism in video games, and the capacity for them to be informative is nothing compared to what you could get from other mediums, like books.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    What came to mind in when writing that section of my post was why Value didn't add female versions of the mercenaries in Team Fortress 2, as it is a good example of how a company can have plans to add diversity but other factors result in the idea getting cut. I was going to link the video originally, but decided against it since while the research and facts are sound, the presentation rather informal for this kind of topic.

    Anyway, memory was the main problem Valve faced with inserting the idea, as having multiple models for a single class would lead to performance issues, which is one of the last things you want in a fast paced multiplayer game. This issue was compounded by the production costs of creating distinctive designs for the new characters, building the models and the animations for them, hiring voice actors (keep in mind that the game has over 4,000 voice clips just for 9 characters), and how the work required to update the game with new items would be doubled with the addition of a female cast. On the competitive side of things, the different models might have different hitboxes, meaning that players would likely pick the gender model that is harder to hit over the one they like, and making both models exactly the same to prevent this issue would defeat the purpose of having two different characters. Robin Walker, one of the developers of the game, has stated in a few interviews that while adding female characters is not impossible, it is unlikely to happen due to the potential costs in game performance and production, and the development team never found a satisfactory compromise they were happy with in their attempts to implement the idea.

    This is far from a universal reason as to why certain videogames don't have more diverse casts, but it is a good example of how a developer may have wanted to implement one but other factors prevented the idea from coming to fruition.

    The argument that it takes up too much effort falls flat when they could've had half of the existing characters be women, rather than design M/F options for every single character. You really don't need to make weak excuses for their decisions, dude.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    Or my original post was pointing out how Disney has always been embarrassed about Song of the South and how refurnishing a ride would bee seen as a standard business practice if the timing of the announcement weren't so suspect.

    That, and how different news sources are saying different things about certain aspects of these protests to push their own agendas, and how this is nothing new.

    Everything is inherently political. Posting in this section of the forums, especially this thread, is motivated by politics in some way. If you didn't care at all, you wouldn't be posting here.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    Doesn't help that most of the issues I care about won't be solved by politics, but rather the attitude of the larger culture and society, and I don't expect those things to align with everything I believe in anytime soon. It's why I believe the greatest impact anyone can have is treating everyone we meet, whether neighbors, family, coworkers, or random people we don't know with respect and focusing upon inward characteristics over outward ones.

    With a defeatist attitude like that, you have no hope of changing anything. No change was ever brought about by simply being nice. Disrupting is necessary and people, even the "nice" ones, are going to push back either because they don't understand or they're benefiting from the problem.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    Some points that came to mind on the positive side of things (speaking generally):

    - It throws the idea out there, which in turn the allows people to ignore, praise, criticize, dissect, analyze, apply or reject it. It can have an influence on others and can provide encouragement for others to present their own ideas and views on the matter.

    - Even a flawed execution can still raise awareness and, perhaps unintentionally, encourage people to research something to get a more informed view.

    - It takes time, but the more commonplace an ideal is, the more accepted it tends to become.

    On the Negative:

    - Intentions can change quickly, and it is easy to drop support of something if another group offers a better deal. It's even possible to play both sides if it is profitable.

    - People fight back against being strong-armed into showing support for an ideal they don't agree with. There are a multitude of positive examples of people standing firm in their own believes despite the danger and strength of the opposition, even if it costs them their life, just as there are destructive cases where people do as much in their power to hamper growth and hang on to their old ideals for as long as they can. Both of these send strong messages, whether encouraging or destructive.

    - A flawed execution of an idea can be just as dangerous as it can be helpful. It can encourage research, yes, but if someone doesn't put in the effort, it give them a warped perspective of a situation (especially if they don't do anything to combat it), which in several cases can build up over time and lead to taking actions based upon a biased or flawed viewpoint.

    Again, I am speaking generally, and this is more giving some quick thoughts than writing an essay. 

    Woof, you're really not the philosopher you think you are.

  3. 21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    That was more a point about how absolute a viewpoint about a group can be, regardless of the variances of the people within said group. I suppose I didn't make that aspect clear enough. Point is, the same attitudes can be leveled at groups that didn't choose their lot in life as much as organizations made up of all kinds of people.

    I'm taking this to mean that you're reluctant to apply descriptions to any group on the basis that there may be outliers/exceptions, yes? While in most respects I agree with that, the key distinction for police and Republican politicians is that both groups are intrinsically defined by making a career (which they chose and can quit at any time) out of exerting power and authority in some form, defined by a set of ideas. As such, the power structures that they exist and operate in are intrinsically defined by the majority actions/opinions of those groups. An individual cop or Republican who speaks or acts contrary to the rest of their group has no meaningful sway and is either ignored, silenced, or removed from the group. A political party is more fluid since they, by necessity, change in reaction to the political landscape, but nevertheless the Republican party has an unparalleled ability to get their members to kowtow (the 2016 election has plenty of examples of this). Any meaningful dissent by a member within either of those groups is almost certainly going to require renouncing the group.

    21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    Couldn't that itself be considered a racist statement? That it is supposedly impossible for white people to not be racist about anything? That someone with white skin can't ignore the pointless physical attributes about another person and instead care about about the qualities that actually matter?

    Perhaps that wasn't what you were aiming at, yet the attitude that one can't be racist or sexist towards a majority still exists, and it simply flips the problem instead of actually solving anything.

    Ah, you might be misunderstanding. Trying to ignore superficial qualities is good, but it only addresses your own prejudices. It can help to distinguish the terms:

    • Prejudice can be defined as a personal bias towards a group (eg: "I don't like ____ people"). Anyone can be prejudiced, and it's easy to notice this behavior in ourselves or others. It's comparatively easy to fix and usually the point of fiction where people learn to respect people from other groups (eg: Path of Radiance racial tension between Jill and Lethe).
    • Racism can be defined as something that causes a negative impact towards a group, such as through actions by individuals, or ongoing systemic oppression. Arguably, not every group can be racist towards certain other groups. By this definition, a black man not trusting white people is prejudiced, but if his actions have no meaningful impact on white people, then you could argue that it's not racism, but prejudice.

    It's helpful to not look at "racist" being a hard label for anyone other than those who embrace it (like KKK members) or constantly and consistently perform racist actions (like some politicians), and rather look at individual performing instances of racism (sometimes unintentionally). What separates personal prejudices from racism as a whole is that you might be doing something with absolutely sincere intentions, but causing negative impacts based on race. Technically, that's racism, but it doesn't make you a racist. The other part of it is that white people by default benefit from system racism, regardless of their opinions or awareness. 

    A key thing to understand is that when you say "I'm not racist", you're really saying "I'm not prejudiced". You probably are doing your best to be mindful of your behavior. But it doesn't mean you're not susceptible to making mistakes or benefiting from racist systems. People who try to say they aren't racist when called out on something they did are really just trying to exempt themselves from criticism. In that sense, by claiming "I'm not racist", a person is saying they're above reproach.

    21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    Oh I most certainly agree. There really is no excuse to have diverse casts in this day and age, although execution of the concept obviously varies between works. Historical works with an aim of accuracy is perhaps the only field that can "get away" with supposedly racist or sexist casting (or at least, it receives the least amount of criticism for doing so).

    For what it's worth, history is often whitewashed or sugarcoated, so I think it's worth keeping a critical eye on something that uses accuracy as a defense.

    21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    Models take time and money to create, voice actors aren't cheap, and characterization goes out the window on the competitive scene, among a plethora of other elements that go into making sure a game runs and is fun to play. Of course, it is always a good idea to design a game with diversity in mind, yet so much goes into the development process that not every idea can come to fruition. There are a lot of legitimate issues that developers have to face that would sound like lazy excuses in a different field. It is entirely possible to aim at something and miss the mark due to factors outside the creators control, with no hostile intent on their part.

    On the flip side, a game having great diversity does not always mean it is fun to play or well-designed, even if said diversity can still be a positive element that draws people to a game. There are enough examples where the gameplay sucks yet other elements such as the story, characters, music, art style, and so on still get people interested. It is awesome when a game manages to achieve this diversity while also having excellent gameplay, but considering how many games out there have excellent ideas yet don't always execute them well, this is far easier said than done.

    This might be getting a bit off-topic, so I don't know if we should keep discussing it here, but the bottom line is always that it's a conscious decision to add, cut, or ignore any design choices. Video game leads are overwhelmingly white (or coded white) male characters and it's both creatively stagnant and rather exclusionary towards audiences if they make little to no effort for diversity.

    21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    I never trusted any large group to have the common persons best interests in mind, hence why I stopped giving a crap about politics and why I've accepted that scummy business practices will always be a thing, even if it is a worthwhile fight to stamp it out. Learning that car companies are entirely willing to ignore known issues because it is easier to pay off lawsuits than fix the problem, even if it results in a number of deaths, will do that pretty quickly.

    Ah, don't be so sure, if you're participating in this thread, then you do care about politics, ultimately. I don't blame anyone for being burnt out by how shit the world can be and not wanting to get super involved all the time. Yet, there are still ways you can help improve other people's lives without dedicating much if you can, and at the very least, staying informed is invaluable.

    21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    I see both productive and destructive qualities in this statement, though perhaps that's just my philosophers side coming out. I'll give it some thought before starting any debates.

    You're more than welcome to share those thoughts.

    -------------------------------

    I guess I missed a super troll. It's too bad, cuz trolls give mad experience points. Thanks to all of you who had my back.

  4. 13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    I see where you are coming from. In several ways, I agree. You don't get to choose the cards you were given in life, and the deck is often unfair, but you can decide what to do with the hand and opportunities you are given. While circumstances do matter, I would say that the actions taken in response to the opportunities one has far greater impact, as that determines and builds a person's character. I won't pretend that race isn't a factor, but it is up to the individual as to whether or not they will let that influence their decisions.

    I will say that "spoiled" didn't come to mind regarding the phrase "privileged". The opposite, actually. It could be seen as telling someone "you didn't receive an education, get hired for a job, or earn a promotion because you worked hard. You got it because you were white." This could be considered an extreme interpretation,  but on some level that is what the phrase is saying. Perhaps race will always be a factor, but it is far from the only one in a person's life, and its influence can be nonexistent in a multitude of situations.

    This is part of the reason I am wary towards labels and such, as they tend to oversimplify matters that have a multitude of aspects to them. "White Privilege" is mostly being utilized in a matter-of-fact manner in the current topic, yet I have no difficulty seeing it applied as an excuse to blame race as the main reason some people are in better situations than others, when it is never that simple. Especially given how polarized our current political and social environment is, it is far too common to see any side make absolutes about another.

    Terms only oversimplify matters when people have simplified understanding of those terms. White privilege is easy to sum up, but there's a lot to unpack because of how far reaching the effects of racism are. Some of the issues present reach back decades or centuries, and resolving them requires, at the very least, identifying how those issues play out.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    Heck, in this very thread, there have been some pretty strong summations of republicans and the police, when there are several individuals in either group whose actions speak to the contrary just as there are people who fit the descriptions like a glove.

    This isn't as strong a point as you seem to think it is. People don't choose to be black, or female, or gay, etc, and among those groups there's a tremendous degree of diversity. But people do choose to be republicans or police. While their ideologies and intentions aren't uniform between members of either group, they are both, at their core, groups designed to wield power over others. That these two groups also are overwhelmingly controlled by people using that power violently and cruelly means that anyone else in that group is, to at least some degree, enabling that cruelty.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    All that said, I still dislike the term, but I do appreciate the different perspective. It caused me to think about the topic for a good while, and my post went through a few revisions because of that. Ever since I was a child, I never saw a difference between races, and never saw a reason to treat anyone differently because of it. I knew full well how prevalent racism is throughout history, yet I took that as a lesson that everyone is human, equally capable of virtue and vice, and that treating people differently based on the color of their skin was pointless and destructive. I wouldn't say I am "proud" for sticking by this principle, as I believe it should be the default stance on the matter for every human being.

    Yet these current protests did get me thinking if this stance had a few blind spots that I wasn't aware of before. That because I strived to not take aspects such as race, gender, and so on into the equation when interacting with others, instead putting more stock into a person's character, that I didn't take into consideration the moments when others didn't share this viewpoint. That not caring about race caused me to overlook the times it may have been a factor in another's life. My stance on treating people equally remains unshaken, yet again, I do have to thank you for giving me food for thought. It was a good topic to reflecting on, and I will keep these different viewpoints in mind.

    It's good to acknowledge your blindspots and question your behavior regularly. Lots of people don't want to do that, and we all suffer for it. One thing to keep in mind is that black people don't get the ability to not think about race. A black person is confronted for their race in everything, whether normal everyday life like going to the store, or major milestones like college applications. When a white person says "I don't see race", what they're effectively saying is "I don't want to think/talk about racism", especially the racism that they may be guilty of or benefiting from.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    Replace skin color with gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, and so on, and this example extends beyond just race. Regardless of the difference(s) between the two people, this kind of situation is easily muddled. Sometimes the white person is hired because they were more qualified for the job, other times it is because of racism. It may even be both in some cases. Regardless of the reason, it is easy to twist the situation to make it appear that the other person didn't get the job because of the color of their skin, regardless of the other factors in play. This either leads to a corporation being rightfully criticized for racism, or it gives unwarranted infamy to a company that is difficult, if not in some cases impossible, to get rid of.

    Hiring people is an extremely subjective process. It's not like people have RPG stats that you compare and calculate. Being "more qualified" is ambiguous; keep in mind that the impacts of racism aren't limited to "we picked the white guy over the black guy". Black people deal with extra hurdles throughout their entire lives. To have a practically identical resume as a white person requires the black person to do more or endure worse at nearly every turn.

    There are also some shady practices like pulling the listing and editing the requirements to match a specific applicant, so that they're the only one technically qualified, even if others who previously applied were as well. This is just one way people try to sweep their racism under a rug.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    The opposite situation can also be the case. The company may hire the black person over the white person due to having higher qualifications, or they may give them the job in order to fulfill a quota, or both. And just like the previous situation, it is easy to frame someone being hired to appease a certain group over their actual abilities, regardless of what the case may actually be.

    Part of the reasoning behind Affirmative Action is that having a more diverse workplace is in the organization's best interest, as it means the workers have different perspectives to offer. It's also less about trying to "appease" groups and acknowledging that the markets/systems/etc favor straight white cis men over anyone else in basically every metric.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    This situation extends beyond job interviews. While far from the only industry where this takes place, it is especially noticeable in the entertainment field. There are a multitude of products out there that have been criticized for their implementation, or lack thereof, of race, gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, etc. Sometimes these criticisms are well founded, other time it might be complaining about an aspect that doesn't directly impact the story at all, and sometimes the situation came about due to a lack of time/resources and/or gameplay balance instead of malevolent views on the creators behalf.

    If race/gender/sexuality/etc play a role in the story, then they should be cast appropriately. If not, there's no reason to not have diverse casting or characters. Having diverse casts helps normalize diversity. Development issues are a pretty weak excuse as for why there isn't more diversity. The bottom line is that the developers chose to skip over making diverse characters in favor of something else, which is very likely stemming from the lack of diversity in the industry.

    13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

    Disney remodeling Splash mountain as mentioned in the original post could be seen as a variant of this. Roller coasters getting a new coat of paint is common in the industry, yet Disney's timing makes it appear that the decision was done to get on the good side of certain groups. It is possible that they were planning the change for some time and made the announcement when they were confident they had enough resources to do so. It is suspect that they made the decision during the current social climate, but it would be far from the first case of odd timing. Their rather clumsy handling of LGBT content recently doesn't do them any favors, which lends itself to the point I am trying to make. That there are often several factors involved in situations like these, which not only affect the decisions made by those in charge but also how others react to the news and what viewpoint they take. Analyzing the context to find the truth is perhaps the best course of action in these kind of circumstances, but rarely is that a quick or simple process.

    It's absolutely fair and right to not trust brands and companies (they're not your friends), but hey, a win is a win. If they remove racist thing, it still has a positive impact on the world, even if it was done for selfish reasons. Bottom line is impacts over intentions.

  5. 1 hour ago, Deenward said:

    That makes sense. My only question would be what the best way to enforce these bans would be. Considering how blatantly prejudiced and corrupt large swaths of the police force are, relying on them to ensure people don't break their stay-at-home orders and meet up sounds like a bad idea. Would the federal government have to send in agents to all U.S. states and territories to enforce it? That way, you have a better regulated body of officials far less likely to exploit their position to hurt people or fly off the handle and make impulsive and deadly decisions. Or would the government being on the same page and universally requesting people in the U.S. comply with the rules be enough to convince the vast majority? Either way, it just sucks knowing that the administration is not taking the resurgence of cases seriously.

    It's complicated, too, because people (rightfully) want to continue to protest the systemic racism and police brutality pervading this country and finally get officials from the state to the government level to take the problem seriously. But I can't imagine thousands of people gathering up in tight groups helps quell spread of the pandemic. Should people be allowed to use their right to protest to gather like that, even under/assuming the conditions of a stay-at-home order? I'm honestly not sure right now.

    Many local/state governments enforced lockdowns on restaurants, etc with threats of fines, losing their liquor license, etc. No need to involve the police, really.

    As @Excellen Browning pointed out, the BLM protests haven't been a problem. I posted some links in the COVID thread about a few major places not seeing any change in their downward trend of new cases, check 'em out:

  6. 18 hours ago, UNLEASH IT said:

    If I was a Republican senator, I'd be hopping on the "defund the police" train faster than anyone else. Why Republicans allow a state-run, heavily unionised organisation to run wild will always be baffling to me.

    Republicans only care about having control over others. Their typical anti-union, anti-regulation thinking is based on how it limits their ability to dominate industries, and thus people. They like the police because they have the ability to subjugate people in a way that is generally accepted, or at least until recently. It's also why when they talk about handling crime, it's all about punishment and not about rehabilitation. Many cops share that thinking and vote Republican knowing they'll be given more power, whether through legal protections or through funding/equipment.

  7. 1 hour ago, XRay said:
    We should still maintain our spending to keep our allies at ease. Having bases, hardware, and troops on allied soil helps maintain our alliances.

    Our military is more than capable at cyber warfare, although I agree that we are better at launching attacks and hacking than defending against them though.

    Our loss of soft power has more do to with Trump than our military spending in my opinion. Our military spending has been about the same under Obama, and I would argue our soft power has reached its peak in recent history under Obama. I guess I would not mind diverting some funding towards USAID and education to counter China's economic influence and to maintain our technological lead and use brain drain as a tool to keep our enemies in check. I am more skeptical of diverting military funds towards healthcare and housing though. Healthcare is important, but I think our healthcare problem has more of a market share power problem than a funding problem, and if we let the government dominate the demand side as a single payer, we would be able to better negotiate better prices and bring our costs down to be more in line with other developed countries. I do not think spending on housing is going to impact our soft power much, although I guess it would look pretty nice to the rest of the world if we build enough low income housing to solve our own housing issue for the poor and have enough left over to help accept international refugees.

    • All our spending means nothing if our allies don't trust us, which they don't. They are publicly talking about ways to address global threats without our support.
    • If you're going to link an entire broad subject Wikipedia page like that, at least point to what I'm supposed to be focusing on. I'm all for spending on cyber defense, though I don't think we're that great at how we operate that.
    • Here's the bottom line: Most of our military spending isn't about national security. It's about an empire built on neoliberalism. The same neoliberal thinking that pushes the US to spend absurd amounts of money on fighter jets so Lockheed Martin stock can stay up is also driving the housing market, the private health insurance market, and so on. Ultimately, the US government is more a vehicle to help maintain wealth for certain people than it is to provide basic human needs to as many people as possible. We've installed dictators when they do what we like and we've helped remove those get in the way of our profits. The empire relies on people, such as yourself, arguing that we need the military to be overwhelmingly powerful. It relies on you being afraid of the threat that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are all biding their time, waiting to strike. But even with a fraction of our military capabilities, these countries wouldn't dare start anything major because of the toll a direct conflict would take on them and/or their own profits. So instead, we have the weaponry to "police" to world, which is about as helpful to the rest of the world as our own police are to our people. That parallel is not a coincidence, as the same thinking that drives our military also drives our police force. Wanting to cut funding for both is to want to see an end to that abuse of power.
    1 hour ago, XRay said:

    I agree the government can step into the low income housing market more to help the poor, but I think the government's current involvement in the middle income market is more than sufficient. Existing rules and regulations is enough to protect that portion of the market so far, and as long as we maintain our financial regulations, we should be able to avoid 2008's mortgage disaster.

    You aren't listening at all, and I'm done wasting my time with you on this.

  8. 3 minutes ago, TheGoodHoms said:

    If you're trying to say I'm a bigot, just stop yourself right there dude. I do not identify as alt-right at all, I consider myself politically neutral. I admit I had chosen my words poorly, but otherwise I was trying to give a neutral perspective when I was making my Disney comments. I based my comments on observations I had made about the company's marketing, not on any personal opinions.

    There is no such thing as politically neutral. At best, that means you're politically ignorant or politically selfish-- you either don't understand the discussion, or you don't really care. Or both.

  9. 2 minutes ago, Burklight said:

    Are you suggesting that the protests shouldn't be peaceful? I don't think it's a stretch to get from this comment to active calls to violence.

    You totally missed the point. Watch the video I posted. There is a limit to peaceful protesting when it's directly against a violent faction where there is no appealing to their morality. Even MLK and Ghandi said as much.

    1 minute ago, Anacybele said:

    And yeah, this. Plenty of protests have been peaceful, some pretty big.

    Yeah no shit, that's not in dispute. Watch the video.

  10. 3 minutes ago, Burklight said:

    You're right, and that's in my view part of the problem. If the way you're protesting alienates more people than it persuades, then you're actively hurting a cause that I personally care about.  

    If you can point to an example where that's been the case, I'd be intrigued, but otherwise it sounds like you're making an assumption about how many people are upset with the protests.

    4 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

    The mass peaceful protests, for one thing. Educating people better through these protests and all is another.

    Which mass peaceful protest are you referring to? What does that mean?

    You have so much to learn about how all of this works, but for now here's a short video that might help:

  11. 45 minutes ago, Burklight said:

    Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not suggesting it's fair. It's absolutely not fair. But you have to ask yourself, what's the goal of the protest? Is it to get revenge and spite the people you believe are oppressing you? Or is it to gain support for your cause to fix the unfairness? It's an important question, because you actually can't have both. 

    I can totally understand why people who believe they're oppressed would go out and be as obnoxious as possible, but it won't effectively persuade people to help them make the changes they want.

    It's not to persuade the people who are inconvenienced, it's to put the spotlight on an issue that people are ignoring or are unaware of. Outrageous behavior gets the discussion going.

    Saying you support their right to protest but not how they did it begs the question, "then what is the correct way to protest?" Anything that doesn't create disruption is going to be summarily ignored. Black people have been protesting for generations, and yet there are still the same age old existential dangers, which means something even more disruptive is necessary.

  12. On 6/26/2020 at 6:18 PM, XRay said:

    I think the program just needs to close the loopholes and have better oversight so it cannot be abused. Having additional rules like giving residents the priority to live in the new developmental housing with a similar size and price point that they previously lived in sounds pretty reasonable to incorporate.

    I'd argue the entire HUD needs to be rebuilt from the ground up since the problems aren't limited to HOPE VI.

    On 6/26/2020 at 6:18 PM, XRay said:

    You have not cited any sources. If a military source is not available, an academic one or a trustworthy news source explaining how redirecting some of our military expenditure is going to better improve American interests and influence abroad would help.

    • The US under Trump is increasingly isolationist, which key allies like Germany, France, and Japan are seeing as a sign that they can't count on us. Even post-Trump, in their eyes, there's nothing ensuring that we wouldn't elect another isolationist.
    • Russia and China have been utilizing more methods that a traditional military isn't prepared for, like hacking servers.
    • China in particular is focusing more on soft power beyond its immediate sphere of influence, while the US is losing theirs. Focusing on addressing issues like housing, healthcare, education, etc with our money is part of improving the soft power the US has.
    On 6/26/2020 at 6:18 PM, XRay said:

    I literally just mentioned having the government stepping in. I find your antipathy against the market to be unreasonable. Just because one portion of the market is not working does not mean you need to get rid of the entire market.

    I'm saying these problems are inherent to an under-regulated market. They will continue to exist unless the government address it, and if the government steps back, the problems will reemerge.

  13. 5 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

    Except it is. I've seen video of, for example, a community grocery store that was completely destroyed inside. Shelves were knocked over, food was all over the floor, drinks and other liquids were spilled, there was hardly any viable product left in this place and locals still went in with carts looking for what could be salvaged. This was their nearest grocery source. It nearly made me cry. Also, the lady filming was black, btw. She just wanted to feed her kids and now she has a hard time doing that. Rioting and destruction does not do the black community any favors.

    No, it's not, nobody is breaking into your home because you're white. You're telling a different story all of a sudden. You're also mistaking the random acts of destruction for the actual protests. It doesn't delegitimize the protests nor does it mean you're a target. You are speaking out of a fear and assumptions.

    5 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

    The police are meant to be protectors and heroes. There's nothing wrong with portraying that. And how would you portray them then? As evil demons because a few bad ones murdered people? Normalizing racism is wrong, but that is obviously not what a little kid's show or a freaking syrup bottle is doing.

    They are meant to, but they are anything but. Instead, they're effectively a special class of people who are largely immune to the laws they're supposed to uphold for everyone else, while being equipped physically and legally with the means to do whatever they want. Corruption is rampant, and there are also little to no effective mechanisms in place for "good" cops or regular people to challenge that corruption.

  14. Just now, Anacybele said:

    And just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's offensive or has to be changed. I don't even really watch Paw Patrol or COPS, btw, and I think changing or getting rid of them is ridiculous.

    This isn't about you or me or what we like or don't like. It's about removing things that normalize racism and the glorification of police.

    Just now, Anacybele said:

    And yeah, they're being murdered by other "protesters" the rioters. Someone participating in a riot shot that 21 year old girl and the rioters make the peaceful protesters look worse.

    The protesters are largely non-violent. Police are responding to these non-violent protests with excessive force all across the country, and to retaliate with guns is basically suicide. The police are looking for an excuse to use even greater force.

    You'll need to show some receipts about that girl, I'll bet you the world that she wasn't shot by protestors.

    Just now, Anacybele said:

    Oh wow, so you'd be okay with someone just randomly coming to my house, bashing in the windows, and robbing it just because I happen to be a white person? Thanks much.

    That's not what's happening. At all.

    Just now, Anacybele said:

    I'm not condoning anything white supremacists do either. But you're acting like any white person is problematic. Not all of us are racist fucks.

    Nobody has said this. If losing Splash Mountain and COPS is the worst thing that happens to you, consider yourself blessed.

  15. Just now, Anacybele said:

    I care about both, thanks. You don't need to change perfectly good entertainment to keep people from suffering. And you DON'T need to riot, murder, and destroy.

    Except it's not perfectly good, and you're refusing to admit that because it's a thing you like. The beauty of this is that your opinion on the matter isn't going to stop Disney or other companies from looking at where they've fucked up and make changes.

    The protestors aren't murdering. On the contrary, they are being murdered. Some destruction is justifiable if you consider that there are limits to peaceful protesting when what they are against is a direct existential threat. Much of white America cares more about property than it does about the well-being black people, and destroying property is the only way to get their attention. You should also take note of what I said in the post right above yours regarding white supremacist groups inciting violence.

  16. @Anacybele No. No to all of that. The bottom line is, you have to ask yourself which you care more about-- Disney rides and video games, or enduring and ubiquitous racism and the wishes of the people who suffer every day of their lives because of it.

    19 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

    I don't like to get involved in political discussion on the forums I'm a part of because I get tired of hearing about politics as is and I just want to relax when I'm browsing, but I agree with you. The peaceful protestors and those wishing for true, common sense reform are getting silenced by those seeking to take advantage of the situation for their own personal agendas instead of for the good of the country. There is no excuse for theft and violence to take place in any circumstance. This whole situation just demonstrates how American society in general has been taking almost every issue to the extreme. There's no balanced, measured responses to issues anymore, only the most diverging opinions and drastic solutions for problems that need thoughtful analyses and careful approaches.

    Keep in mind that one of core issues with these riots is that black people are being killed by police while doing normal everyday things like going to the store. You have a genuine privilege if you get to ignore the discussion and relax, when the victims of police violence and racists can't. In that sense, everything is inherently political, including the decision to stay out of it. That's not to say "oh, how dare you!" for finding it stressful, confusing, and not knowing how to approach it, but you'll be doing yourself a huge favor if you make efforts to educate yourself.

    For what it's worth, theft and destruction as a result of the protests is complicated by the fact that, except when it's directly targeting things the protests are based on (like Confederate statues or police cruisers), it's often done by people who aren't protesting, but looking to start shit. White supremacists groups specifically went out of their way to incite violence and destruction in an effort to make the protestors look worse and give the cops an excuse for further force.

  17. 53 minutes ago, XRay said:

    I do not see anything wrong with owning a home as an investment.

    Assuming we are able to solve the housing crisis, people who want to move out of government housing, want a detached home, and can afford one should be able to buy and own their own dwelling and land.

    It's not that it's wrong, per se, but solving the housing crisis would make buying/selling a home less of an investment vehicle, not because people couldn't, but because it wouldn't be necessary.

    Bear in mind that one of the loooong standing issues with the housing market is banks and lenders denying mortgages and loans to minorities. Buying a home is not as simple as you seem to think it is.

    53 minutes ago, XRay said:

    That sounds more like a rule/loophole causing a problem than the program as a whole. If they kept the provision that the number of new housing units must match or exceed the number of demolished units, then there should be less of a problem. Tightening the definition of slum would also be good so we are not wasting money to rebuild neighborhoods that do not need rebuilding yet.

    The provision was removed by the Republican-controlled House in 1998. It was very much a deliberate choice.

    Here, do your own homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_VI#Criticisms

    53 minutes ago, XRay said:

    I prefer to see some written sources from the military that says that.

    Russia and China are not some wild animal that pose little threat to America. They pose a significant and major threat. And they do not affect just our standard of living or national prosperity, people's lives are also at stake. With how easy it was Russia to interfere with our election process, and how bat shit stupid some of our people are, Russia could promote some dumb conspiracy theory that our uneducated idiots would gobble up. If we are already having trouble telling people to wear masks and having trouble trying to save them from their own stupidity, it would not take much effort for Russia and China to make disinformation worse.

    While we might not have bear patrol, we still have animal control for when those situations to arise.

    You do realize that no military person working today would ever go on the record criticizing the military budget, right? That'd be career suicide.

    I've already stated I don't have any interest in discussing Russia and China with you because your viewpoint is coming from an emotional place and and you're not really open to anything that pokes a hole in that.

    53 minutes ago, XRay said:

    I do not think there is anything wrong with letting the market solve the problem if the market can do it. If the market is not willing to step in to build low income housing, then the government can step into that role. If the market can provide adequate middle income and high income housing, then the government does not need to involve itself there.

    The market has no incentive to fix it. They have a very strong incentive to keep it as is, at the expense of the poor. It's really not complicated, dude.

    -----------------------------

    If your answers on housing are just going to amount to "nah, I think it's fine" when I'm telling you that people's lives are being ruined daily, then we're all set here and your response is neither required nor welcome.

  18. On 6/23/2020 at 8:51 PM, XRay said:

    People who own their homes in poorer neighborhoods generally have more wealth than people who rent in the same neighborhoods, but they are not exactly rich either. Artificially keeping their home values low is just worse in my opinion.

    Housing shouldn't be a commodity, and that extends to the middle-class homeowner as well. Not that it's their fault, we shouldn't be living in a world where you buy a home as a means of investment as opposed to just getting proper

    On 6/23/2020 at 8:51 PM, XRay said:

    The government can employ more inspectors to enforce rental regulations to make sure homes are hospitable.

    There's a flipside to that thinking-- HOPE VI, for instance, a government program designed to demolish slums and rebuild them, sounds pretty good on paper, until they took out the provision that they had to rebuild the same number of housing units. There was also an issue where the designation of "slum" was ambiguous, leading to a large amount of adequate condition low-income housing being destroyed in order to build new fancy units with a higher ROI for owners. Keep in mind that the overarching issue with gentrification is how it displaces poor people.

    On 6/23/2020 at 8:51 PM, XRay said:
    We will not have a direct war with them, but we need to spend that amount. Not spending it would lead to more situations where Russia and China can just curbstomp and bully their neighbors with impunity. Ukraine already lost Crimea, and South East Asian countries are in the process of losing the South China Sea. We cannot let that happen to our closer allies, we need that spending to be prepared.

    That military spending also acts as a counterbalance for other countries to utilize. I do not think India wants American troops and hardware on their soil right now, but if shit hits the fan between them and China, we need to be able to send India stuff at a moment's notice if they ask for it.

    If anything, our military spending as percentage of GDP is low by historical standards. When we were facing the Soviet Union, our military expenditure ranged from 5-10% of our GDP. Our military spending last year is about 3.4% of GDP.

    I don't have any interest in discussing defense spending with you because we've done this song and dance many times before. I will, however, mention that the Pentagon and DOD people I talk to all agree that the military budget is absurdly higher than it needs to be and there'd be little to no impact on our global standing if we cut it significantly.

    Obligatory:

    On 6/23/2020 at 8:51 PM, XRay said:

    As a temporary solution, checks will have to do for now. The long term solution is to build more housing but we are going to need a lot more planning and funding to get that done, not to mention the amount of votes needed. I am not sure how receptive people are to building subsidized housing on a much larger scale than we have now.

    For NYC's housing project, the rent is based on a percentage of income, so we can try that model, but the current model also has a lot of problems where people are not moving out and there is a long wait list, so there needs more fine tuning. Japan's model has a long wait list too, but it seems more financially sustainable and they do not seem to have a problem with demolishing old buildings and rebuilding them.

    It's true, we do need checks in the short term. The underlying issue is the neoliberal thinking of letting the market solve the problem when it's the source of the problem. The long term solution goes far beyond even building more housing, including a massive legislative overhaul. A number of major laws regarding public housing have been largely detrimental and instead favor private companies over middle-class owners and renters, and those laws need to be repealed or heavily amended.

  19. 28 minutes ago, XRay said:
    Market failures happen from time to time in the form recessions, supply-demand mismatch, or something else, but those are temporary. That does not mean we need to replace the market because most of the time it does not fail.

    I am fine with the government reigning in the market, but I think there should be a limit to the extent of the government's role.

    You're arguing about whether or not it counts as a market failure, but that's besides the point-- it's a failure as a method of maximizing the amount of people housed. The market favors people who already have money and exploits those who don't. Historically, government involvement has been mixed in terms of efficacy, but the worst instances have always pushed for privatization of public housing.

    28 minutes ago, XRay said:
    Not every homeowner is a rich person. There is nothing wrong with homeowners wanting their homes to appreciate in value.

    There are also laws in place where tenants can sue the landlord for disrepairs and inhospitable living conditions. By law, landlords need to maintain a certain level habitability for their housing units.

    Wanting your home to appreciate in value is one thing, but to do so at the expense of poor people is vile.

    When it comes to tenants' rights, most lack the means or understanding to take legal action or prevent landlords from doing awful things. What exists for protecting renters isn't as effective as you seem to think it is.

    28 minutes ago, XRay said:

    According to the map, that is more of a Southern and Rust Belt problem. California and most blue states already does its best to keep food prices low. The federal government already redistributes wealth from blue states to red states. There is not much we can do about it if people keep sticking with Republican politicians down South.

    From how I see it, that is less of an industry problem and more of political problem.

    Read the whole thing instead of just looking at a map and jumping to conclusions.

    28 minutes ago, XRay said:

    Russia by itself is not much of threat, but there is also China. China has an economy that rivals ours, has four times our population, and has the ability to transfer tech from Russia or just steal it from us. Combined, their political and economic influence rivals NATO.

    We're not going to have a direct war with China or Russia. Spending over $700 billion a year on defense doesn't help our diplomatic, information, or economic influence.

    28 minutes ago, XRay said:

    I guess a few more rounds of stimulus checks would be nice as a temporary solution.

    As for the long term solution, we can emulate what the Japanese government did and build subsidized public housing, but on a larger scale. The rent is lower, but renters still need to maintain a certain level of income. We can also emulate New York's housing projects, although it is plagued with money issues right now, so it needs its financial kinks to be worked out first before we copy that template.

    The issue with simply giving people stimulus checks is that it means the government is just writing landlords checks while they continue to overcharge for rent. It doesn't fix the source of the problem. Creating extra conditions like requiring a certain level of income creates further problems as people's incomes rise or drop, as well as doing nothing for those most in need.

×
×
  • Create New...