theone86's forum posts

Avatar image for theone86
#1 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@comp_atkins said:

are you privy to the charitable work ( or lack thereof ) of the all "the rich" to make those judgments? also, it's pretty fucking arrogant to appoint yourself the one who decides how someone else should spend their money.

so joe billionaire has to eradicate world hunger, disease, and poverty before we can start thinking about preserving heritage?

i'm with you on the bullshit lobbying though..

Yeah, rich people think it's cool that homeless people die of exposure while they spend billions of dollars rebuilding a thousand year old relic, but I'M the arrogant one? Okay, sure.

And, BTW, not only do the rich spend proportionately less of their income on charity than middle class individuals, but charity has proven to be an ineffective vehicle for social change. What really betters people's lives is having more money in their pockets to spend as they need, not waiting for other people to give them what they think they need. I'd be much more impressed by the wealthy paying a living wage than I would be them dropping a bunch of money on charity.

As for eradicating disease, no, that's impossible. Hunger and poverty? Absolutely. There's no reason anyone should starve in this day and age. And it would be one thing if it just wasn't feasibly possible. Notre Dame proves it's possible. When rich people want something a billion dollars just materializes out of nowhere. Where was all the charitable giving after Grenfell Tower? Where was the billion dollars dropping out of the sky? Oh yeah, I forgot, that building wasn't "culture", it was only people's home. I'm only left to conclude that they don't want to end poverty and hunger. Since they don't care about what I care about, I don't care about what they care about. **** their moldy old church, and **** them.

@sonicare said:

I think we have radically different takes on the value of culture. You seem to view it as some privilege of the wealthy, and to embrace culture is to thumb your nose at the rest of "poor" society. That art, literature, etc. is a luxury that is otherwise meaningless in the greater picture. I wholeheartedly disagree. For many people, culture gives their lives identity, inspiration, and purpose. A reason to live other than simply existing.

Also, I don't know why you view culture as simply the play thing of the wealthy. The earliest hunter-gatherer tribes devoted large amounts of time and effort to spiritualism. Look at the aboriginals in Australia for example. They have tons of sacred sites dotted throughout the country. Would you not mind if the government there simply bulldozed those sites to make more affordable housing and farmland available?

Maybe to you, Notre Dame cathedral is just a bunch of rocks and wood. The Mona Lisa may just be a bunch of paint on a canvas. Shakespeare a bunch of ink on paper. But to others, these examples of culture hold far deeper meaning and enjoyment. Who are you to say what should be important to each person? You say people are irreplaceable - but they aren't. Individuals are irreplaceable, but people are replaced all the time. Everyone that lived during the time Notre Dame was built is dead, but yet, the cathedral remains. A testament to the history and culture of those times. I think certain landmarks give us a sense of peace and security due to their permanence in an ever changing world. I'm sure that many people, especially the french, take great pride in that site as it represents their history, their culture, and to some of them, their spirituality. Besides, it's not like France doesn't have fairly robust social systems to help the people. I don't know why you believe that it's all or nothing. Do you not spend money on entertainment despite the fact that their are people out their starving?

And who decides what is culture and what isn't? Oh right, the wealthy. Who decided which buildings got to be built or paintings painted in the first place? The wealthy. Who decided which artists starved and which were able to eke out a living? The wealthy. Who decides which paintings get to be preserved in museums and which are left to decay? The wealthy. You're hopelessly naïve if you think that "culture" isn't a creation of the elites. How about next year you try getting into the Met gala by telling them how much you love culture and how it gives your life meaning?

And how arrogant are you to say people don't have a purpose in life if they're simply existing? I've got news for you, but that's what the vast majority of people throughout history do. They go about their lives, they find enjoyment and love, they work, they die, that's life. They don't need some thousand year old building to give their life meaning. Millions of people lived before Notre Dame was ever built, millions more have never heard of or seen Notre Dame, and their lives are just as vivid and meaningful as anyone else's. "Culture" doesn't give their lives meaning, they do. They're not dependent on any work of art or any organization to imbue their lives with meaning, and the fact that you think they are just makes my argument for me.

You're hitting on exactly the problem. You think that some building standing for a long time or some painting being preserved for a long time is a way to cheat death, to gain immortality, it's not. Everything fades to dust, everything. Your precious rocks and paint, steel and iron, and people. One day, one way or another, Notre Dame is going to be as gone as the people who built it. One day there won't be anyone left to remember Notre Dame or what it stood for. There's no such thing as permanence, and your obsession with objects of "culture" is just your way of fooling yourself into thinking there is. And hey, I would have zero problems with that if we focused on taking care of people before we focused on taking care of inanimate objects, but we don't. On the contrary, I think the elite in our society spend more time and effort preserving objects than they do helping people, which is why I have no problem seeing their "culture" burn.

Avatar image for theone86
#2 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@comp_atkins said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:

I've never said buildings are more important than people. That's a false corollary. One can value landmarks and such without elevating them above human life. Culture gives us an identity and a purpose. A meaning to life other than just the daily grind. It has tremendous value to many societies and I think it's fine that people mourn when a part of it is destroyed.

It has no value to societies. It's a bunch of rocks and wood. And it would be a different story if the world's wealthy took the time to ensure that everybody in the world was housed, fed, and educated before they donated a billion dollars to fix a musty old church, but they didn't. They spend all their days gaslighting the rest of the world and telling us that poverty isn't that bad, charities and free markets are going to fix everything, their money wouldn't really make a difference anyway and they need to invest it in businesses, and then drop a billion on a bunch of rocks like it was nothing. **** their rocks. I hope every piece of art and "culture" that they care about spontaneously combusts.

Culture has definitive value to societies. You're just hating on one particular aspect of it because you dont care for it. Would you be happy if all the art, sculputre, poetery, literature in the world suddenly was lost forever. Would you say that has no value to society. we should just focus on fixing poverty and ignore all that wasteful stuff like art and culture. To hell with it! What a fun world that would be.

Culture doesn't have value to society, culture is society, and society is people. "culture", as you're defining it, is nothing but a bunch of inanimate objects, objects that rely on people to give them value and not the other way around. As soon as those objects take priority over people they've become pernicious and no, I wouldn't mind seeing them destroyed in the slightest. More works of art can be made, but people are irreplaceable. Your worldview is perverse to elevate "culture" above people, and if I had to destroy beautiful works of art in order to help actual people then I would in a second.

again, it's not a one or the other decision. we can help actual people and preserve culturally significant works at the same time.

It shouldn't be a one or the other decision, but it is. When the rich spend years upon years upon years arguing that government programs that help actual people should be abolished and billions upon billions of dollars lobbying politicians and funding campaigns to make sure that happens, and then turn around in an instant and drop a cool billion on a musty old church like it was nothing then it creates an issue. It wouldn't be a one or the other decision if we would just make a commitment as a society to ensure that everyone has food, housing, and education and THEN spend a bunch of money restoring a bunch of old stones, but that's not what we did. It's like making an excessively large purchase while you're trying to work your way out of debt. It wouldn't be a bad thing if you would've taken care of your responsibilities first, but that's not what you did. I'm not the one making it into a one or the other decision, the people who refuse to spend money improving society but drop a billion dollars on rocks are.

Avatar image for theone86
#3 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -

It depends on what you mean by SJW (it's very subjectively applied), but people have been attempting to control speech and control the definition of virtue for a LONG time. Neither modern conservatives or liberals invented it. Barbara Bush spent her husband's entire term trying to rally against media figures she saw as vulgar (the Simpsons, gangster rappers). Republicans spent the latter half of the Clinton presidency trying to have him ousted from office for cheating on his wife. It was a conservative Supreme Court justice who ruled in favor of Ohio outright banning a film from being shown, and another conservative justice who said that states could ban obscene art, going on to define obscenity by saying "I know it when I see it." Arch-conservative William Rehnquist ruled against flag burning as protected speech, and how often do conservatives try to paint liberals as enemies of freedom and democracy? It's Fox News', not to mention Mitch McConnell's, favorite move. It's nothing new, and it's certainly not unique to liberals.

Avatar image for theone86
#4 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:

Culture is only fluid when its culture you dont like. amirite bro? Lets just say if it was something other than notre dame, you'd be shitting your pants.

I never said that. Inanimate objects are not more important than people no matter what culture they belong to.

I've never said buildings are more important than people. That's a false corollary. One can value landmarks and such without elevating them above human life. Culture gives us an identity and a purpose. A meaning to life other than just the daily grind. It has tremendous value to many societies and I think it's fine that people mourn when a part of it is destroyed.

It has no value to societies. It's a bunch of rocks and wood. And it would be a different story if the world's wealthy took the time to ensure that everybody in the world was housed, fed, and educated before they donated a billion dollars to fix a musty old church, but they didn't. They spend all their days gaslighting the rest of the world and telling us that poverty isn't that bad, charities and free markets are going to fix everything, their money wouldn't really make a difference anyway and they need to invest it in businesses, and then drop a billion on a bunch of rocks like it was nothing. **** their rocks. I hope every piece of art and "culture" that they care about spontaneously combusts.

Culture has definitive value to societies. You're just hating on one particular aspect of it because you dont care for it. Would you be happy if all the art, sculputre, poetery, literature in the world suddenly was lost forever. Would you say that has no value to society. we should just focus on fixing poverty and ignore all that wasteful stuff like art and culture. To hell with it! What a fun world that would be.

Culture doesn't have value to society, culture is society, and society is people. "culture", as you're defining it, is nothing but a bunch of inanimate objects, objects that rely on people to give them value and not the other way around. As soon as those objects take priority over people they've become pernicious and no, I wouldn't mind seeing them destroyed in the slightest. More works of art can be made, but people are irreplaceable. Your worldview is perverse to elevate "culture" above people, and if I had to destroy beautiful works of art in order to help actual people then I would in a second.

Avatar image for theone86
#5 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@plageus900 said:

@theone86: One could argue that the bourgeoisie are workaholics. It takes hard work to keep those little prole shits in line.

Anyway, I'm more worried about those who refuse to work.

File under: why I wouldn't shed one tear if people like you ever became political prisoners. Anyway, the difference is that the bourgeoisie can choose to work less at any point in time, proletarians can't. I wouldn't expect someone who already has a slavemaster mentality to appreciate that.

Avatar image for theone86
#6 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@mattbbpl said:

@theone86: "My worry is that they'll abandon any non-Bernie voter, like you said."

Then they need to get involved in the primaries. That's where those moves are made in a first past the post system.

They're convinced that there's a DNC conspiracy against Bernie, which is why he lost last time. The question is not whether they'll vote against any non-Bernie candidate or not, the question is how big are they and how far does their influence reach.

Avatar image for theone86
#7 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -

It's called being a proletarian in a capitalist society.

Avatar image for theone86
#8 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@comp_atkins said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@comp_atkins said:

i think people who back sanders don't realize how far left he is and how much the majority of the country DOESN'T think that way.

sure he's got shitloads of appeal to the mils.... but when was the last time they remembered to vote? ( prove me wrong, mils )

like it or not, you have to appeal to people in the middle ( middle aged, middle income, middle of the politician spectrum ) if you want to win elections

whether based on bullshit political promises or not, trump won by pulling people in the middle over to his side.

ummmm......Obama? Millennials helped him win the presidency and then keep it. They then abandoned Clinton.

Trust me on this, if Biden is the nominee, they will abandon him as well.

And no, trump won by being a populist, not by appealing to the middle. The middle actually voted for Clinton. Trump actually picked up 12% of Sanders primary supporters, think on that.

point is you're not going to win appealing to mils as your main support group. it's not going to happen.

they abandoned clinton. great. look how that worked out.

they can abandon biden or whomever the (non-bernie) nominee ends up being, likely to the same results.

they're desperate to have it "their way" but they don't yet have the numbers to pull that off.

Eh, I don't know about that. Millennials are right on the verge of becoming the largest voting bloc in the country. The only issue really is turnout, which is what helped Obama and hurt Clinton. They've been integral to the blue wave so far, and could conceivably power another.

With Clinton, as much as I disagree with her detractors, she really is out of touch with millennial priorities. Her go-to move seemed to be to take really ambitious proposals and water them down, which is like saying to millennials "I care about the issues that are important to you, but not enough to actually fight for them." Remember, millennials came of age politically during Obamacare, where the left made huge concessions on policy in order to win over conservatives and got exactly zero credit for it from conservatives. I don't think millennials value her sort of milquetoast activism, especially on the election trail. If Biden pulls the same move I think he's going to lose a lot of millennial votes. More dangerously, the Democratic Party could start losing not only millennials but people of color if they continue to ignore their issues legislatively. You can't just pander to your constituents endlessly and expect them to be loyal no matter how little you fight for them. And also remember that Clinton had the legacy of Bill's welfare and crime bills dragging her down to. It was like saying "hey, we had all these other pieces of legislation that fell short at best and were counterproductive at worst, so vote for me and I'll pass more of the same!"

My worry is that they'll abandon any non-Bernie voter, like you said. There are several other candidates who seem very committed to progressive priorities and are backing it up with solid legislative proposals, but there's a section of young voters that seems to think that Bernie and Bernie alone is our savior and if he doesn't win the primary it can only be because of behind-the-scenes tampering. I seriously wish he hadn't run and had thrown his support behind one of the other candidates. I think he's far more motivated by ego than any of his supporters would like to admit.

Avatar image for theone86
#9 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -

@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:

Yeah, Notre Dame is part of their history and culture. I don't think people celebrating that is a bad thing. Culture gives us identity and purpose.

Culture is fluid. Buildings decay and fall down. That's fine, they're just things, but people are people. If you're elevating "culture" above people, then I think you're making the perfect argument for the death of culture.

Culture is only fluid when its culture you dont like. amirite bro? Lets just say if it was something other than notre dame, you'd be shitting your pants.

I never said that. Inanimate objects are not more important than people no matter what culture they belong to.

I've never said buildings are more important than people. That's a false corollary. One can value landmarks and such without elevating them above human life. Culture gives us an identity and a purpose. A meaning to life other than just the daily grind. It has tremendous value to many societies and I think it's fine that people mourn when a part of it is destroyed.

It has no value to societies. It's a bunch of rocks and wood. And it would be a different story if the world's wealthy took the time to ensure that everybody in the world was housed, fed, and educated before they donated a billion dollars to fix a musty old church, but they didn't. They spend all their days gaslighting the rest of the world and telling us that poverty isn't that bad, charities and free markets are going to fix everything, their money wouldn't really make a difference anyway and they need to invest it in businesses, and then drop a billion on a bunch of rocks like it was nothing. **** their rocks. I hope every piece of art and "culture" that they care about spontaneously combusts.

Avatar image for theone86
#10 Posted by theone86 (22417 posts) -
@sonicare said:
@theone86 said:
@sonicare said:
@n64dd said:
@theone86 said:

The past is the past. It's ridiculous to be spending as much as they were renovating a centuries-old building in the first place when there are so many other things they could be spending that money on. Too caught up in the past to pay any attention to what's going on in the present, that's Europe in a nutshell.

Blazing ignorance and hatred spewing from you per usual.

Yeah, Notre Dame is part of their history and culture. I don't think people celebrating that is a bad thing. Culture gives us identity and purpose.

Culture is fluid. Buildings decay and fall down. That's fine, they're just things, but people are people. If you're elevating "culture" above people, then I think you're making the perfect argument for the death of culture.

Culture is only fluid when its culture you dont like. amirite bro? Lets just say if it was something other than notre dame, you'd be shitting your pants.

I never said that. Inanimate objects are not more important than people no matter what culture they belong to.