patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,192,847 comments by 13,872 users - AmericanKulak, Ceffer, komputodo, Patrick online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 16 - 37 of 37 Search these comments
Shaman
2014 Nov 15, 3:17am
The problem is this:
1) we make life hard for smart, productive people
2) we make life easy for dumb, unproductive people
The result is predictable: smart productive people have fewer or no kids, and dumb unproductive people have tons of kids.
End result: lots of dumb unproductive people
How does this serve society? By reducing education progress? By increasing crime? By increasing the load of welfare cases?
This is why the GOP wins. Because it appeals to the very fabric of our competitive DNA when it criticizes welfare and the perpetuation of useless people. We don't need more Trayvon Martins or Ferguson denizens. They just add to society burden.
NDrLoR
2014 Nov 15, 3:48am
1) we make life hard for smart, productive people
This has been the practice in schools for decades, beginning in the late 60's, early 70's when everything else was being turned topsy turvy. 55 years ago there was one special education class in most schools and the students in those classes were so obviously intellectually behind the rest of the school that you could simply recognize them on sight. By the late 60's, you could hardly tell special ed students from regular students--a couple of them worked as assistants in my mother's library. Today, special ed students are mainstreamed into the regular classrooms ostensibly to get a better education but really because there are so many now that it would not be feasible to put them in one class. The schools get special funding for these students and it wouldn't surprise me if one out of every five students is now labelled "special needs" in some way. They always get, or are supposed to get, extra attention from the teachers, more time on tests or different tests, and some of the emotionally disturbed ones can be a distraction in the classroom. This of course subtracts from the experience of normal or gifted students. In other words, the bulk of funding and attention are directed not to the gifted students or those with the most potential, but to those with less potential whether it be through their fault or not.
I think we're afraid of a populace that doesn't have to work all that hard, like what we have now. Much better for everyone that the working class has to work, and hard.
Leave leisure to the entitled.
I agree with you. ALthough I would add that before we can have that decent baseline existence for all, we all need to learn to live in a way where we live smaller that is with respect to our consumption/pollution footprint. Because a world with that decent baseline existence is one in which population growth would probably be higher.
The problem is this:
1) we make life hard for smart, productive people
2) we make life easy for dumb, unproductive people
I think life is hard in different ways for both. Again, the tough issue is (or becomes) who gets to reproduce? But even contemplating such a lack of freedom is something we would never dare contemplate until we are totally forced to. This is unfortunate. We don't really believe in or know how to function collectively for the benefit of the community. At least not well enough to pull this off.
I'd like to take (local) transportation, housing, (lifelong) education, and healthcare costs out of personal budgets entirely, just like fire and police services are entirely socialized.
We'd all have access to a baseline that was of sufficient high quality so as to not be crappy at all.
Then again, some places have close to this now. So we don't really know what it would be like to do it here. I think we're also afraid of those non white people taking over the country.
Today, special ed students are mainstreamed into the regular classrooms ostensibly to get a better education but really because there are so many now that it would not be feasible to put them in one class.
This is only the case sometimes. In decent sized districts there is still a degree of separation, and a fair amount of "tracking" occurs. When kids are mainstreamed, it's often with teacher aides that help these kids.
There's a reason that conservatives get so upset about welfare. It enables an unfair competitive advantage to the unqualified and uncompetitive. It defies Darwin's Law of Survival of the Fittest, and gives the advantage to the least fit.
And yet they are opposed to government programs that support family planning and birth control for these very same people. Talk about weird !!
where the weakest minds are the "fittest," and they, unburdened by compunction to give back to society, be productive, or achieve anything, find it far easier than their hard working counterparts to pump out the kids.
Our socialist society selects for stupidity.
How wierd.
First off fattest and fittest are not the same thing. Secondly, I don't think what these people have is exactly the good life. You're right though. Welfare culture has been a failure in some ways. But who knows how many people and families lived that existence only temporarily and rose into a productive middle class life ?
Bellingham Bill
2014 Nov 15, 4:08am
How does this serve society?
Society is made of people.
A happy people is a happy society.
Nothing should "serve society" !
People who see a future for themselves don't pump out as many kids (since kids are not all that compatible to getting a career going, while people who can't find personal fulfillment naturally look to finding fulfillment making a new person to raise); making babies is a natural reaction to our entrenched economy as it excludes & shits on so much of our population.
We can bemoan our $80B/yr foodstamp bill, but we've got a military-industrial complex sucking on a federal teat that's 10X as large.
That's our welfare problem, right there.
There's a reason that conservatives get so upset about welfare. It enables an unfair competitive advantage to the unqualified and uncompetitive. It defies Darwin's Law of Survival of the Fittest, and gives the advantage to the least fit.
That's why the GOP gains such success with demonizing welfare recipients. The competitive nature of reproductive survival is written into our genetic code.
Yet they are fighting tooth and nail to outlaw abortion and access to birth control. Hypocrisy much?
The problem is this:
1) we make life hard for smart, productive people
2) we make life easy for dumb, unproductive people
The result is predictable: smart productive people have fewer or no kids, and dumb unproductive people have tons of kids.
End result: lots of dumb unproductive people
How does this serve society? By reducing education progress? By increasing crime? By increasing the load of welfare cases?
This is why the GOP wins. Because it appeals to the very fabric of our competitive DNA when it criticizes welfare and the perpetuation of useless people. We don't need more Trayvon Martins or Ferguson denizens. They just add to society burden.
The irony is they want to outlaw abortion and make birth control difficult as he'll to access.
People who see a future for themselves don't pump out as many kids (since kids are not all that compatible to getting a career going, while people who can't find personal fulfillment naturally look to finding fulfillment making a new person to raise); making babies is a natural reaction to our entrenched economy as it excludes & shits on so much of our population.
I think you're right. And there is an education issue at the low socioeconomic end that needs to be addressed. But if everyone has a good baseline existence, and without segregated communities where all the least productive and most dysfunctional people have to have their kids go to school together, the problem would very likely solve itself.
It would take a leap of faith and a relatively enlightened population for us to try it in earnest, but I believe you are right.
At present it would not seem that we (the U.S.) are going to be blazing the trail and setting the example of how this can work. In fact, we are moving in the other direction.
Shaman
2014 Nov 15, 5:37am
The problem is this:
1) we make life hard for smart, productive people
2) we make life easy for dumb, unproductive people
The result is predictable: smart productive people have fewer or no kids, and dumb unproductive people have tons of kids.
End result: lots of dumb unproductive people
How does this serve society? By reducing education progress? By increasing crime? By increasing the load of welfare cases?
This is why the GOP wins. Because it appeals to the very fabric of our competitive DNA when it criticizes welfare and the perpetuation of useless people. We don't need more Trayvon Martins or Ferguson denizens. They just add to society burden.
The irony is they want to outlaw abortion and make birth control difficult as he'll to access.
No, that's consistent! The GOP voters only consider themselves for the abortion issues. It's about keeping their daughters from getting abortions, not keeping Shaniqua and Juanita from killing their babies. At some level, we recognize that reproduction is the ultimate win, and make policy decisions based on that.
No, that's consistent! The GOP voters only consider themselves for the abortion issues. It's about keeping their daughters from getting abortions, not keeping Shaniqua and Juanita from killing their babies. At some level, we recognize that reproduction is the ultimate win, and make policy decisions based on that.
Fail. Good try though.
HydroCabron
2014 Nov 15, 5:52am
It's about keeping their daughters from getting abortions
Rich girls will always get their abortions. Those study trips to Mexico in the 1940s weren't for education.
Abortion bans are for those people. You know: those sluts over there.
Both black and white opponents of abortion are voting to ban abortions for other people.
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Nov 15, 6:43am
The irony is they want to outlaw abortion and make birth control difficult as he'll to access.
Maybe that's a selected trait to avoid being weeded out.
Indiana Jones
2014 Nov 15, 7:06am
But there's no economic reason quality education, health care, or housing has to be in scarcity. These don't consume all that many resources. It's just policy keeping them high-rent sectors.
I think we're afraid of a populace that doesn't have to work all that hard, like what we have now. Much better for everyone that the working class has to work, and hard.
The "policy" is to keep people as serfs. Or call them slaves. Same difference.
If you understand this "policy", then it makes complete sense that the masses are not given basic necessities such as housing, medical care and education that is beyond the basics. They are freely given just enough education for the person to grow up and do the work that is needed. And the rest of the education is brainwashing.
The thinking goes a little like: Why should the serfs/slaves live in luxury? Why should they have leisure time? And if they do have too much free time, they might figure out that they are slaves and rise up. We need them to spend the few measly dollars that we give them on our products so they we are enriched and we can live a life of leisure.
HydroCabron
2014 Nov 15, 7:16am
The irony is they want to outlaw abortion and make birth control difficult as he'll to access.
They don't want other people to have sex. This is the only possible explanation.
They want to use the power of the government to prevent people from having sex.
Tenpoundbass
2014 Nov 15, 7:32am
The Dumbest thing the Liberals ever did was convincing the stupid voting public to vote.
marcus
2014 Nov 15, 7:43am
But he still has two years left to sit in his own shit.
On some level he even knows this. Sadly, that actually turns him on. It's some kind of weird ego/sadomasochistic thing.
New Renter
2014 Nov 15, 12:12pm
. It's about keeping their daughters from getting abortions
And having their unmarried daughters dragging a kid (or a pack of kids) around is somehow preferable? Does that somehow improve her prospects of marrying a social better?
Unlikely.
At least if she has a hush hush abortion she might still delude the wedding guests to believe she's entitled to wear a white dress.
John Bailo
2014 Nov 15, 1:42pm
If a person is too dumb to want something, then does it matter if they don't have it?
FortWayne
2014 Nov 15, 2:15pm
Media spends billions every year to make sure we get dumber and dumber and convinces us of stupid government bullshit. I blame the media.
http://thedailyresistance.com/are-we-becoming-more-stupid-iq-scores-are-decreasing/
According to newly published research by an Amsterdam group, Westerners are 14 I.Q. points dimmer than our counterparts from the late 19th century. Assuming the data is correct, what caused this? Keep in mind, this is an average.
I tend to agree that it's an effect of the dimmest bulbs breeding the most. Currently, in the USA, only 31% of all children are being born to middle class households or higher ($35,000+ household income). The rest are being born to poor people, who tend to be dumber. Run that forward a few generations and we are going to have a real dichotomous population. The have nots will be easy to sort from the haves based on their tendency to drool on themselves.