Sure. But the whole point of cliffs comment was that there is this swath of people who are all woked up so these working class white people were getting screwed so these people could score woke points.
They are getting screwed but it has nothing to do with people being woke or not.
You don’t see the scorn that the educated and upper middle class have for the uneducated working class? The derisive comments made about trailer trash, hicks, skids, and mouth-breathers. The food they eat (Tim Hortons and Boston Pizza LOL!). Their ugly clothes and out-of-date fashions. Their bad habits (smoking, VLTs, lotteries). Their activities (ATVs, going to church). The newspapers they read (the Sun), the lowbrow TV shows they watch (reality TV, Dr Phil). I enjoy taking the piss out of the Oilers as much as anyone, but the jokes about Edmonton on this forum are pretty much all sneering at working-class stereotypes.
This sort of snobbery has been around forever. But it has taken on a darker tone now that educational polarization has reshaped politics, and the educated and uneducated are on opposite sides of partisan politics and culture wars. The euphemism treadmill has accelerated even faster now that using a term that’s four or five years old marks you out as not merely an uncultured troglodyte, but a hated political enemy as well. Employing newly-minted language and gestures that emerge from academia has become even more important now that they mark you as not only educated and culturally attuned, but as morally superior to the troglodytes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Sure. But the whole point of cliffs comment was that there is this swath of people who are all woked up so these working class white people were getting screwed so these people could score woke points.
They are getting screwed but it has nothing to do with people being woke or not.
There's another valid point in there about the hypocrisy of the wealthy liberal. Society is plagued by "liberal" people in power who don't actually do anything to help the less fortunate and institute a variety of policies aimed at preserving their own wealth.
This does tie back into the argument about affirmative action. It's not the wealthy person's son who is losing their spot to the one now reserved for a visible minority, it's the poor white person who doesn't have all the family connections. The poor lose one of the few avenues they had for advancement, and the minority groups get a few low level positions reserved for them. The only people who win are the people already winning. What these policies do result in is poor white people being pitted against minorities. It's divide and conquer.
At the root of the problem is that the liberal parties have been hijacked by the wealthy and established. Why are the Justin Trudeaus and Hillary Clintons winning party leaderships. Are these the most qualified people in their countries, or are they just the most connected.
-
I was watching a pretty good YouTube piece on how failed liberal policies have resulted in massive inequality in many of the most liberal states, particularly as it relates to housing:
You don’t see the scorn that the educated and upper middle class have for the uneducated working class? The derisive comments made about trailer trash, hicks, skids, and mouth-breathers. The food they eat (Tim Hortons and Boston Pizza LOL!). Their ugly clothes and out-of-date fashions. Their bad habits (smoking, VLTs, lotteries). Their activities (ATVs, going to church). The newspapers they read (the Sun), the lowbrow TV shows they watch (reality TV, Dr Phil). I enjoy taking the piss out of the Oilers as much as anyone, but the jokes about Edmonton on this forum are pretty much all sneering at working-class stereotypes.
This sort of snobbery has been around forever. But it has taken on a darker tone now that educational polarization has reshaped politics, and the educated and uneducated are on opposite sides of partisan politics and culture wars. The euphemism treadmill has accelerated even faster now that using a term that’s four or five years old marks you out as not merely an uncultured troglodyte, but a hated political enemy as well. Employing newly-minted language and gestures that emerge from academia has become even more important now that they mark you as not only educated and culturally attuned, but as morally superior to the troglodytes.
Part of it is that it's pretty easy to shut people out these days. You don't have as many personal interactions in public spaces, retail stores, bars, etc..., so people interact a lot less with people outside of their own spheres. So it's pretty easy to just believe that all of these lower class people don't exist, when in reality they make up an increasing proportion of Canadians. Currently, the bottom 40% of Canadians hold no wealth whatsoever, and the top 1% hold over 1/4 of all wealth.
But I also don't see what they have to do with anything in Jordan Peterson article we are discussing.
His points were (a) white male, heterosexual people are being discriminated against and (b) because of these discriminations - we are bringing in less talented people.
Rich people holding down poor people and liberal leaders speaking in acronyms and never actually helping anyone are true - but not relevant.
But I also don't see what they have to do with anything in Jordan Peterson article we are discussing.
His points were (a) white male, heterosexual people are being discriminated against and (b) because of these discriminations - we are bringing in less talented people.
Rich people holding down poor people and liberal leaders speaking in acronyms and never actually helping anyone are true - but not relevant.
Cliff seems to agreeing with Peterson's points.
I would agree that many white people are being discriminated against on a micro level. There are certainly white people who did not get certain opportunities due to their race. Overall, obviously it's rich white men who remain in power, but that power is not evenly distributed amongst socio-economic classes. So when identity politics holds people of a race responsible for the discrimination of another race, the brunt of that burden is not held equitably and falls disproportionality on the poor.
The problem with Peterson is that he takes what is essentially a class war, doesn't tell the whole story, and then uses that to make sweeping generalizations about race, gender, sexuality, etc.. that simply aren't true.
There's another valid point in there about the hypocrisy of the wealthy liberal. Society is plagued by "liberal" people in power who don't actually do anything to help the less fortunate and institute a variety of policies aimed at preserving their own wealth.
In the U.S., Democrats control the government of almost every major city, not to mention all of the blue states like New York and California. Municipal and state politics have a bigger impact on the lives of the poor and working class. And yet the federal government gets all the blame for failing the poor and working class. Neat trick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
This does tie back into the argument about affirmative action. It's not the wealthy person's son who is losing their spot to the one now reserved for a visible minority, it's the poor white person who doesn't have all the family connections. The poor lose one of the few avenues they had for advancement, and the minority groups get a few low level positions reserved for them. The only people who win are the people already winning. What these policies do result in is poor white people being pitted against minorities. It's divide and conquer.
That depends on where you’re applying affirmative action. In California, if public universities were mandated to bring enrolment in line with the state’s college-aged demographics, white applicants would actually get a boost. As would Black and Hispanic. This would all be at the expense of Asian students, who are dramatically over-represented in the California public university system.
But affirmative action isn’t popular with any demographic. Only a third of Black Americans believe race should play a factor in college admissions.
At the root of the problem is that the liberal parties have been hijacked by the wealthy and established. Why are the Justin Trudeaus and Hillary Clintons winning party leaderships. Are these the most qualified people in their countries, or are they just the most connected.
Yes, centre-left parties today cater to the educated professional class - the 20 per cent. In Canada that’s households with $150k + income. But of course they (we) reject being regarded as affluent. We’re just average Canadians who happen to earn 2x and 3x the median income. We like to think politicians are beholden to the 1 per cent, but no, we’re the voters who no politician dares mess with.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 01-21-2022 at 10:23 AM.
You don’t see the scorn that the educated and upper middle class have for the uneducated working class? The derisive comments made about trailer trash, hicks, skids, and mouth-breathers. The food they eat (Tim Hortons and Boston Pizza LOL!). Their ugly clothes and out-of-date fashions. Their bad habits (smoking, VLTs, lotteries). Their activities (ATVs, going to church). The newspapers they read (the Sun), the lowbrow TV shows they watch (reality TV, Dr Phil). I enjoy taking the piss out of the Oilers as much as anyone, but the jokes about Edmonton on this forum are pretty much all sneering at working-class stereotypes.
This sort of snobbery has been around forever. But it has taken on a darker tone now that educational polarization has reshaped politics, and the educated and uneducated are on opposite sides of partisan politics and culture wars. The euphemism treadmill has accelerated even faster now that using a term that’s four or five years old marks you out as not merely an uncultured troglodyte, but a hated political enemy as well. Employing newly-minted language and gestures that emerge from academia has become even more important now that they mark you as not only educated and culturally attuned, but as morally superior to the troglodytes.
I mean this has more to do with capitalism and the cost and commodification of education than it does with some kind of nefarious shift in attitudes.
But affirmative action isn’t popular with any demographic. Only a third of Black Americans believe race should play a factor in college admissions.
Which led to the stunning defeat of California Proposition 16 in 2020, which would have re-allowed the use of race in public institutions, despite overwhelming support from elites, politicians and money advantage.
Of course, that doesn't mean the universities have to accept it, they're doing an end-run by no longer caring about admission test scores and trying their best to use "holistic" scores without running afoul of existing laws.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
-
I was watching a pretty good YouTube piece on how failed liberal policies have resulted in massive inequality in many of the most liberal states, particularly as it relates to housing:
Interesting watch. My first question is how do these inequality issues compared to comparable Republican situations?
It's still USA (ie. the old idea that Canadian PC is still more liberal than Democrats), and it's always hard for people to make sacrifices themselves for the greater good.
Inequality/poverty are also just inherently difficult problems to solve - anywhere/everywhere. The 20M people living in Scandanavia have perhaps come the closest (that utopia being certainly overstated), but the other 99.75% of the world continues to struggle.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say but if you are saying generally white millennial aged men, then yes.
As long as they have someone to blame I guess. And Peterson has conveniently found someone to blame unqualified BIPOC Canadians who are stealing their spots in universities.
The Following User Says Thank You to Aarongavey For This Useful Post:
Interesting watch. My first question is how do these inequality issues compared to comparable Republican situations?
It's still USA (ie. the old idea that Canadian PC is still more liberal than Democrats), and it's always hard for people to make sacrifices themselves for the greater good.
Inequality/poverty are also just inherently difficult problems to solve - anywhere/everywhere. The 20M people living in Scandanavia have perhaps come the closest (that utopia being certainly overstated), but the other 99.75% of the world continues to struggle.
It's a fair point. Generally, the liberal states are by far the most expensive. This could be because they are also the most popular destinations to live, they attract a multicultural population, which makes them more liberal.
For example there are must migrants who want to move to new York than Alabama, which makes New York both more liberal and more expensive.
There are a lot of fair points in the video though. Generally, it's residents of California and New York who are also driving the fiscal policy, specifically the low closely held corporate tax rates, driving the failed progressive tax system.
It's just again pigeonholing equality. But only one way.
Look at the accounting department in your company. It's probably majority non-white and that's OK. But if it were all white guys suddenly it's a problem and privileged.
And then there's the whole university degree status thing. If you are a woman for example and you don't have a university degree not in white collar jobs or you are a housewife or in child care, you are diminished, not contributing to the female quotas needed in society. I could tell you tonnes of such stories.
I could go on and on, why aren't there more male nurses? Why aren't there more women lawyers etc etc.
Why aren't there more women lawyers? They make up about 53% of law school graduates. That is a good question. Maybe they need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Interesting watch. My first question is how do these inequality issues compared to comparable Republican situations?
It's still USA (ie. the old idea that Canadian PC is still more liberal than Democrats), and it's always hard for people to make sacrifices themselves for the greater good.
Inequality/poverty are also just inherently difficult problems to solve - anywhere/everywhere. The 20M people living in Scandanavia have perhaps come the closest (that utopia being certainly overstated), but the other 99.75% of the world continues to struggle.
This is an article by the well known leftist Forbes magazine where they list the top ten states for poverty. 9 out of 10 have the governing, house and senate controlled by the Republicans.
At the time of the article's publicatio 9 out of 10 of the states with the lowest levels of poverty were democratic states. Now that is 8 out of 10 with the recent change of power in Virginia.
It seems like there is a decent partisan correlation with poverty.
Last edited by Aarongavey; 01-21-2022 at 09:20 PM.
Why aren't there more women lawyers? They make up about 53% of law school graduates. That is a good question. Maybe they need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
I don’t know what you’re getting at by your bootstraps comment. The ACC reports the rate of women leaving the workforce is related to the time burden, low flexibility and perceived difficulties in maintains career trajectory following leave. UC Irvine Law reports a combination of similar factors, as well as societal acceptance of underemployment among women and its perceived short term benefits (like, you know, having a mother care for a newborn) but concludes that workplace discrimination is not a majority contributor.
It’s not pulling the bootstraps harder, in the face of some sort of sexist culture.
__________________
No, no…I’m not sloppy, or lazy. This is a sign of the boredom.
Listening to bits and pieces of his Joe Rogan interview from today, the man has a brilliant way of making the simplest of topics and convoluted and confusing as possible. Nuclear power is safer than solar because people die falling off roofs installing solar panels.
His mind is a mess. No such thing as climate apparently, reads 200 climate change books a year.
The Following User Says Thank You to FormerPresJamesTaylor For This Useful Post:
