I reply, cautiously, just to answer a few points. [Platt] What I emphasize which you apparently are completely blind to are the people of competence, regardless of color, who, because of their competence, overcome all obstacles and become successful.
[Arlo] When did I say such things _never_ occur. But I think, based on my humble observations in the real world, that the incidences of "competent blacks" being denied opportunity because of the color of their skin far outnumbers the cases where "competency" alone overcomes racial barriers. I also dispute the idea that xenophobia is "human nature". Rather than looking at people who have overcome "fear" as being somehow exceptional, I believe instead the people who continue to pander to racial fear to be deceived by ideological propaganda. [Platt] What I think is wrong is to assume that any adult group needs my help or yours to be successful. That simply patronizing and insulting. [Arlo] Well, that's the right-wing schtick. But the reality is that many individuals belonging to these "groups" do face prejudice and lack of opportunity that can prevent them from becoming successful without good people stepping in and ensuring that "competence" is truly the only measure of success in any endeavor. When you can tell me that any woman, of any color, can buy any house, and her success in doing so has nothing to do with the pigment in her skin, then I will tell you the time for "racial preferences" is past. This is not "patronizing", nor "insulting", but recognition of the prejudice and xenophobia that places unfair barriers around many. [Platt] Sure, there are certain situations where your helping someone can give them a hand out of a temporary bad situation. But the risks inherent in huge bureaucratic welfare programs are 1) creating dependency, 2) enabling destructive behavior, and 3) building resentment among those being "helped" due to the patronizing, holier-than-thou attitude of do-gooders. [Arlo] I'm going to have to come up with a name for this. "Feigned obliviousness", perhaps. We had many conversations about "welfare" in the past, and I've been the first to suggest that there are abuses and unintended consequences in the present system. And these need to be addressed and the system needs serious reform. But I find nothing "immoral", indeed I find it moral and beneficial, for society to create and implement a safety net to ensure that those hit by hard situations have access to support while the rebuild, reorient and find new labor. [Platt] Very few people find satisfaction in being "needy." Consequently, to restore their sense of control, they find many creative ways to game the system. Haven't you been reading any of SA's posts? [Arlo] No, there is no satisfaction in being poor, and a loss of agency is always accompanied by shame and depression. But rather than vilify the poor for being "lazy and stupid", I prefer to scaffold them until they are in a position to reclaim their agency. There is truly no shame in finding oneself in dire straits. Even the best of people can find themselves suddenly without labor, without insurance, and their life-savings gone. Working to get these people back on their feet, and autonomous again, should be the goal of the social safety net. [Platt] ... a civil tongue is obviously not one of your strong points. [Arlo] You are the only one here who could accuse me of this. And no, I lack the desire to be civil when confronted with ongoing distortions and deceptive rhetoric at every turn. Now are we done? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
