Wall Street Protesters

[dohdough]

[quote name='Spokker']I think it has more to do with people talking on the telephone, or sending telegraphs, or emailing each other or whatever form of direct interpersonal communication you can think of. That someone else is buying a stock or otherwise making an investment sends a signal. It's a piece of information. It could be useful or it could be dangerous, but people act on that signal. We aren't totally independent thinkers.

There was some study done on individual investors where they asked them what first drew their attention to the last company they invested in. Only 6% said they read about it in some newspaper or magazine. The vast majority said they heard about the company from some guy they knew. Then the stock becomes hot or cold and the rest is history.

This is part of the reason we have the Securities and Exchange Commission, because people talk to each other all the ing time. We love it. We evolved to do it. It's part of our nature. It's not even a bad thing, but it's the reality of our entire existence. We have short-term bitching (Netflix stock drop) and long-term bitching (consumer confidence index). People panic, that panic spreads, market drops, and then people start to form their own information and calm down and the market adjusts up a little to reflect the true severity of whatever made people panic. It happens all the time.[/QUOTE]
In other words, you have absolutely no clue.

I would love to hear about the power elite, but I don't know if I'm going to agree that it's quite as sinister as that. It isn't just the power elite getting in on all this nonsense. You know who were the among those implicated in the IBM insider trading thing in 1995? A secretary, a beeper salesman, a computer technician, a pizza chef, a banker, an electrical engineer, a dairy wholesaler, a teacher, a gynecologist, an attorney and four stockbrokers. That's some group.

I don't think you fully grasp the concept of the power elite either.

Anyway, there are a ton of reasons why there are booms and busts, but herd behavior in good times and contagion in bad times are big deals. I mean, gosh, look at how fast panic swept through the East Asian nations that one time. It was the most gnarly Spring Break ever.

[quote name='Spokker']Actually, we created our own stereotypes on the playground. The power dominant privileged patriarchy didn't get us by the collar and tell us to notice differences among race, class and gender. We did it all on our own by being smart and observant little ers. There's usually no hate in it, despite beliefs to the contrary.[/QUOTE]
How do the do kids come up with black people being lazy, drug-dealing, poor, watermelon eating, fast runners, etc? How the do kids come up with Asians being good at math, have small penises, exotic, asexual, perverted, bucktoothed, etc? If there's no hate involved, then no one ever in the history of mankind has anyone ever been killed because of them...that's what you're implying right? That's there's no harm involved?

Sounds like someone doesn't understand basic sociology or history...or maybe you're just another ignorant privileged asshole...probably both since they compliment each other.

 

[Spokker]

[quote name='dohdough']
How do the do kids come up with black people being lazy, drug-dealing, poor, watermelon eating, fast runners, etc? How the do kids come up with Asians being good at math, have small penises, exotic, asexual, perverted, bucktoothed, etc?[/quote]Kids will make fun of each other's differences without really knowing what those differences even mean, and it sort of takes off from there. They probably won't know how screwed up Japanese porn is until they get on the Internet, though. But they'll do slanted eyes, notice the Asian kids tend to be at the top of the class, and so on.

In fighting racism and prejudice, the so-called experts do go after this tendency of children to notice differences all on their own.

http://www.adl.org/issue_education/hateprejudice/Prejudice3.asp

As they begin to notice differences, 2-year olds may show signs of "pre-prejudice"-they may act afraid or uncomfortable. Not necessarily possessing the vocabulary to express their concerns, they may avoid or ignore a child they perceive to be different.

Unless you can convince me that adults and teachers can convince a 2-year-old to ignore a child they perceive to be different, some of this stuff may come naturally before I can even introduce them to Sambo.

If there's no hate involved, then no one ever in the history of mankind has anyone ever been killed because of them...that's what you're implying right? That's there's no harm involved?

I don't know if it's true that stereotypes kill. Probably not.

I may be an ignorant privileged asshole, but it is unwise to believe that it is only ignorant privileged assholes that stereotype others. Earlier, someone, maybe you, naturally assumed that I am white (well, technically I am as far as the census is concerned, but not in the traditional sense). I'm not offended, but I do think there are some stereotypes you might want to work out of your system. You may also wish to talk to those boys who voiced the hurtful stereotype that minorities never vote Republican, suggesting that no minority could ever be a privileged rich asshole who wishes to preserve their own power.

Even I feel odd using the term minority. I keep getting told my people are taking over. That doesn't seem like such a minor problem!

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='Spokker']Kids will make fun of each other's differences without really knowing what those differences even mean, and it sort of takes off from there. They probably won't know how screwed up Japanese porn is until they get on the Internet, though. But they'll do slanted eyes, notice the Asian kids tend to be at the top of the class, and so on.

In fighting racism and prejudice, the so-called experts do go after this tendency of children to notice differences all on their own.

http://www.adl.org/issue_education/hateprejudice/Prejudice3.asp

Unless you can convince me that adults and teachers can convince a 2-year-old to ignore a child they perceive to be different, some of this stuff may come naturally before I can even introduce them to Sambo.[/quote]
You're so cute when you try to school people on race, but you couldn't be more wrong. Kids get their socialization from the people around them and not from each other. Just because you're not calling black people n****r or Asian people c**nks doesn't mean that they aren't observing and absorbing how people are treated differently.

I don't know if it's true that stereotypes kill. Probably not.

Guns don't kill people; people kill people right?

Go eat a bag of dicks.

 

[Spokker]

[quote name='dohdough']You're so cute when you try to school people on race, but you couldn't be more wrong. Kids get their socialization from the people around them and not from each other. Just because you're not calling black people n****r or Asian people c**nks doesn't mean that they aren't observing and absorbing how people are treated differently. [/QUOTE]Is this why anti-racists are shocked when their child suddenly exclaims, "Mommy, why is that woman's face brown?"

Or this story from a transracial adoption blog: http://www.rageagainsttheminivan.com/2008/07/mommy-look-at-brown-boy.html

I've heard stuff like that, and I've been on the other side, too (like the time we were at Chili's and an AA family sat down behind us - this was before we adopted - and my son said, "Mom, they're BLACK! I don't like black people!"

And I was MORTIFIED! We knew we were going to adopt an AA child in the next year. I had absolutely NO idea where that came from. I think I said, "Well, I have no idea why you would say that when your preschool teacher and most of your friends are black." I don't know - I'm pretty sure I was having a panic attack.

When other kids make comments, I try to jump in quickly and let their parents off the hook. I don't want them to worry or sweat it. I usually say, "Hey check this out - put your arms side by side and see how beautiful you look together - black against white. Isn't that cool?"

Not only did the child notice the difference, he formed an opinion on it, and he belongs to a family that wants to adopt a black kid, so you know they are very aware of these things.

Unfortunately, they never asked the kid why he didn't like black people. Not that it would matter.

 

[dmaul1114]

There is some research out their suggesting that kids naturally notice racial differences--the study/book Nurture Shock seems to be the prime example. I've never read it as I'm not all that interested in race issues personally, but I did read a Newsweek article about it a while back. I couldn't track that down, but did find this pretty long write up about it by the authors of the book (which actually may be the Newsweek article just posted on another site actually).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/09/04/see-baby-discriminate.html

Though skimming through it, it does seem more socialization than nature to me other than the findings that there some natural tendency to notice things like skin color and associate with people in your "in group."

Theme to me seems more than parent socialization doesn't matter as much as peer group socialization. But there probably is some natural inclination to socialize with people like you even at very early ages regardless of exposure to diverse peer groups, parents with multi racial friend groups etc.

Like anything in this area, pretty much every aspect of human behavior is a function of both biology and the social environment. There just isn't enough research on the intersection as inter-disciplinary research is still a relative rarity.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='Spokker']I didn't grow up in a foreign country and was on the receiving end of stereotyping. Unless they are bashing your brains out, grow a thicker skin when it comes to playground-like bullshitting.[/QUOTE]

Not that it matters - but there was brawling to be sure. Place had a "boys will be boys" attitude, for me that meant I had to defend myself in fights every week, had my stuff vandalized or stolen - all the usual. Truth be told I'd rather fight a bully in the open then deal with the prison-like American highschools with their zero tolerance bullshit that does nothing but empower bullies. Either way I do have a thick skin now, thank you very much.

Having a thick skin doesn't mean I can't point out bullshit when I see it. And stereotyping is bullshit.

 

[Spokker]

[quote name='dmaul1114']There is some research out their suggesting that kids naturally notice racial differences--the study/book Nurture Shock seems to be the prime example. I've never read it as I'm not all that interested in race issues personally, but I did read a Newsweek article about it a while back. I couldn't track that down, but did find this pretty long write up about it by the authors of the book.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/09/04/see-baby-discriminate.html[/QUOTE]
I've read this before too, and the interesting thing about it was that one group quit suddenly.

At this point, something interesting happened. Five families in the last group abruptly quit the study. Two directly told Vittrup, "We don't want to have these conversations with our child. We don't want to point out skin color."

And I have a feeling that because they are so afraid of discussing it, it actually makes whatever problem they think there is worse. Noticing differences, and even making a little fun of them and being real about them, and not getting so damn insane about it, would probably help people get along much better.

At the end there's this funny kid that is so elated that there is a black Santa. Wait until he learns that Santa is supposed to leave you presents.

I apologize to the people that were mercilessly killed by that stereotype.

 

[Spokker]

[quote name='camoor']Not that it matters - but there was brawling to be sure. Place had a "boys will be boys" attitude, for me that meant I had to defend myself in fights every week, had my stuff vandalized or stolen - all the usual. Truth be told I'd rather fight a bully in the open then deal with the prison-like American highschools with their zero tolerance bullshit that does nothing but empower bullies. Either way I do have a thick skin now, thank you very much. [/QUOTE]
If the schools want to stop bullying, have the bullies arrested if a crime has been committed. For some reason people don't want to enforce laws against these young people.

But don't fool yourself that this is limited to any one group. Ask white kids who grew up in all-black schools how they were treated. Not recognizing that is some bullshit too.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='Spokker']Is this why anti-racists are shocked when their child suddenly exclaims, "Mommy, why is that woman's face brown?"[/quote]
Actually, anti-racists know exactly why a child would say that, but you wouldn't because you're not an anti-racist and neither are the people you're describing.

Or this story from a transracial adoption blog: http://www.rageagainsttheminivan.com/2008/07/mommy-look-at-brown-boy.html

Not only did the child notice the difference, he formed an opinion on it, and he belongs to a family that wants to adopt a black kid, so you know they are very aware of these things.

You didn't read the blog post.

Unfortunately, they never asked the kid why he didn't like black people. Not that it would matter.

Actually, it would, but you'd have a hell of a time trying to get the kid to articulate it.

But what I really want to know is why you not only picked a post that supports my point, mistake the girl for a boy, and then ascribe the sentiment that the white girl didn't like the black boy without any evidence.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='Spokker']But don't fool yourself that this is limited to any one group. Ask white kids who grew up in all-black schools how they were treated. Not recognizing that is some bullshit too.[/QUOTE]
Sure it is, but it's not because black kids just hate white kids for the of it. Now let's see if you can hypothesize why.

[quote name='Spokker']I've read this before too, and the interesting thing about it was that one group quit suddenly.

And I have a feeling that because they are so afraid of discussing it, it actually makes whatever problem they think there is worse. Noticing differences, and even making a little fun of them and being real about them, and not getting so damn insane about it, would probably help people get along much better.[/quote]
Your version of "talking about" probably differs from mine...and from what I see so far, yours isn't that great.

At the end there's this funny kid that is so elated that there is a black Santa. Wait until he learns that Santa is supposed to leave you presents.

I apologize to the people that were mercilessly killed by that stereotype.

There's a man named Vincent Chin that would like to talk to you about stereotypes. Feel free to look him up yourself.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='Spokker']If the schools want to stop bullying, have the bullies arrested if a crime has been committed. For some reason people don't want to enforce laws against these young people.

But don't fool yourself that this is limited to any one group. Ask white kids who grew up in all-black schools how they were treated. Not recognizing that is some bullshit too.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, get the lawyers involved, that always solves everything.

All stereotyping is wrong doesn't matter who is doing it to who.

Sounds like you're a little butthurt over getting picked on in HS, I suggest you get over it and you realize that the stereotyping people inflicted on your head was wrong. Stop acting like such a goddamn spineless victim.

 

[soulvengeance]

[quote name='Spokker']Kids will make fun of each other's differences without really knowing what those differences even mean, and it sort of takes off from there. They probably won't know how screwed up Japanese porn is until they get on the Internet, though. But they'll do slanted eyes, notice the Asian kids tend to be at the top of the class, and so on.
[/QUOTE]

Children may notice differences, but they don't attach any meaning to it, good or bad. The stereotypes are formed by those who raise them. You're willfully ignoring this.

 

[dmaul1114]

[quote name='docvinh']Children may notice differences, but they don't attach any meaning to it, good or bad. The stereotypes are formed by those who raise them. You're willfully ignoring this.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, part of the Nurtureshock argument is that kids identify with those like them and label those different as "bad" even if raised in families promoting diversity etc.

I don't know enough about the research to say whether I buy it or not, but it's at least one study potentially finding some natural tendency in human nature to label those different from yourself as "bad".

 

[soulvengeance]

[quote name='dmaul1114']To be fair, part of the Nurtureshock argument is that kids identify with those like them and label those different as "bad" even if raised in families promoting diversity etc.

I don't know enough about the research to say whether I buy it or not, but it's at least one study potentially finding some natural tendency in human nature to label those different from yourself as "bad".[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I do believe that it talks about how the parents need to have a discussion about the racial differences and how they're not bad, so I think that the stereotypes are still passed from the parents.

 

[dmaul1114]

Actual stereotypes are of course passed on socially.

But the study did seem to show some innate tendency to gravitate towards others like yourself in terms of skin color even among infants and toddlers who wouldn't be at an age to have had race conversations with their parents yet.

By the time kids are a little older, then I think social factors would be the main impact for sure. The findings for infants etc. are what are more interesting on the natural tendency/biology side of things.

Also, even on the parent talk thing--the finding was that kids who's parents totally ignored race as they thought it didn't matter and didn't want to emphasize differences between people where shocked when their kids reported negative things about blacks. So that would be the stereotypes being picked up from peers perhaps, rather than the parents. The parents simply did nothing to prevent them from picking up those stereotypes from peers (or any natural tendencies) by ignoring race rather than educating their kids about race.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='dmaul1114']To be fair, part of the Nurtureshock argument is that kids identify with those like them and label those different as "bad" even if raised in families promoting diversity etc.

I don't know enough about the research to say whether I buy it or not, but it's at least one study potentially finding some natural tendency in human nature to label those different from yourself as "bad".[/QUOTE]
I know you haven't read it and it doesn't really interest you, but the questions I'd have about that hypothesis is the age of the kids, how is "promoting" diveristy defined, amongst other questions. I'll probablly get around to reading it eventually, but I'm guessing that this book won't be relevatory to me.

From all the writings I've read and talks I've had with anti-racists IRL, you can't avoid having your kids internalizing racism because racism is endemic in society. That's like trying to keep sexism or any other -ism out of their experiences...it's simply impossible. Their socialization is shaped by more than just their parents as a member, if not participant, in society. This is part of the reason why black girls choose white dolls(a little hyperbole here) even if they live in ethnic enclaves.

edit: looks like you already said the same thing while I was writing...lolz

edit2: for docvinh, stereotypes don't necessarily have to come from the parents.

edit3: Looks like Occupy Boston was raided this morning at 5am. 30 people were arrested, but there were no beatings, tear gas, or pepper spray. Down goes Boston.

 

[dmaul1114]

I think the promoting diversity was putting them in schools with multiracial classes rather than picking the all or mostly white pre-school out in the suburbs etc.

But again the interesting stuff was the part with infants--though from what I recall from the article that wasn't really race based. Just some study with colored items that showed they started to identify with "their" color and shun the "other" color.

The stuff with the older toddlers and up I find harder to pin on biology/natural tendencies as I'd think peer socialization should matter more.

But who knows? Totally different area, but the studies in criminology that look at the interaction of biological and sociological factors in predicting criminality pretty consistently find that both matter but the biological factors matter more. *shrugs*

Just something we don't know enough about in multiple fields as there just isn't all that much interdisciplinary research combing biology and sociology out there compared to the isolated studies in each field.

 

[dohdough]

That's pretty problematic on it's face. I'm hoping that we're not talking phenotypically here.

 

[dmaul1114]

[quote name='dohdough']That's pretty problematic on it's face. I'm hoping that we're not talking phenotypically here.[/QUOTE]

Nah, most bio-social studies haven't tried to isolate what it is biologically that makes people aggressive/criminogenic.

They've done things like compared whether adopted people's behavior more resembles that of their adoptive parents or the biological parents they never new--and found that criminal behavior by the biological parent had more of an impact.

Other studies found higher concordance rates between identical twins than fraternal twins--including studies of twins separated at birth and thus raised in different environments.

Those studies can't speak to what it is biologically, but do offer pretty strong evidence that nature may matter at least a bit more than nurture.

Other biological studies that do isolate things are mostly focused on things like hormonal imbalances (i.e. too much testosterone), neurotransmitter problems (dopamine, serotonin etc.) that have been pretty consistently linked to crime. As well chromosomal problems (having an extra male chromosome etc.). There is some work trying to identify a criminogenic gene, but it doesn't get a lot of play (at least in criminology, not sure in biology) and I doubt there will be any success there.

And there are few theories that combine bio and social things--like Terrie Moffit's Dual Taxonomy theory. She suggest that most people are "adolescent limited offenders" and just offend briefly in adolescence due to what she calls a maturity gap where they want to be doing adult things and thus the rebel and start imitating the trouble makers who are already drinking etc.

While others are "life course persistent" offenders and keep offending into adult hood, commit more serious crimes etc. This is explained through a bio-social theory where these folks are born with neuro-cognitive deficits that make them difficult children. Thus they're more likely to be abused or neglected by parents (especially if born into a lower class family--and birth defects are more common in the lower class due to drinking, smoking and drug use by pregnant women), and then more likely to fail in school and so on. So the biological deficits start a snowballing process of cumulative disadvantage that reduces their chances to succeed in life, and the more trouble the get into the harder it is to get back on track.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but that's kind of where the field is. The bio stuff doesn't get a lot play as there's still a big stigma against it after all the unfortunate Eugenics stuff from the late 1800s through mid 20th century.

Concern is certainly warranted as policy makers could try that stuff. But there are lots of positive policy implications from this type of work like interventions with pregnant women in lower class areas to keep them off alcohol, tobacco and drugs while pregnant and to educate them on parenting etc (which has shown to be effective in reducing crime and delinquency as the kids age in studies by Olds). Screening programs for delinquents who's behavior may be driven by hormone imbalances, neurotransmitter problems or other things that can be treated rather than having them continue to get in trouble and drop out of school etc.

 

[chiwii]

[quote name='dmaul1114']I think the promoting diversity was putting them in schools with multiracial classes rather than picking the all or mostly white pre-school out in the suburbs etc.

But again the interesting stuff was the part with infants--though from what I recall from the article that wasn't really race based. Just some study with colored items that showed they started to identify with "their" color and shun the "other" color.

The stuff with the older toddlers and up I find harder to pin on biology/natural tendencies as I'd think peer socialization should matter more.

[/QUOTE]

The infants just looked at pictures of faces longer when the picture was of a race different than their own.

The kids in the study with the red and blue t-shirts didn't shun each other. According to the study, they still played with their normal friends regardless of the shirt color. Their actions didn't change as a result of the shirt color. However, when asked about their group vs. the other group, they did indicate that their group was better. I wonder if they believed that before the questions were asked, or if the questions themselves introduced the bias (I only read the article that you posted, not the actual research.)

 

[dmaul1114]

Thanks for the clarification. I was trying to go off memory from when I read the study back when it was in Newsweek!

 

[Spokker]

[quote name='docvinh']Children may notice differences, but they don't attach any meaning to it, good or bad. The stereotypes are formed by those who raise them. You're willfully ignoring this.[/QUOTE]
Why did the little boy raised by anti-racist transracial adoptee parents say, "I don't like black people." in the middle of a restaurant? Surely his parents would have shielded him from such blasphemy.

This all leads to an interesting question. Which came first, the stereotype or the little bit of truth it's based on?

 

[Spokker]

[quote name='dohdough']Sure it is, but it's not because black kids just hate white kids for the of it. Now let's see if you can hypothesize why.[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure white kids in all black schools who get the shit beaten out of them experience that because they happen to have had the only two parents in their neighborhood who didn't flee with all of the other white people. I don't know if you're looking at some kind of revenge angle here or something, but it's not the right way to go. Or is this why that racist tram tirade bitch is in jail while the racist Somali chicks went free after kicking the shit out of that fat white girl?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ence-sends-wrong-message-street-violence.html

I wonder if letting little violent skanks go free was the point of the civil rights movement across the pond.

[quote name='dohdough']
There's a man named Vincent Chin that would like to talk to you about stereotypes. Feel free to look him up yourself.[/QUOTE]I took an Asian-American film class to fulfill my school's diversity class requirement and they showed Who Killed Vincent Chin? in it. There was a funny moment after the movie in which this Asian guy goes, "Who killed Vincent Chin? I think it was the guy who hit him in the head with a bat." And then another student exclaimed, "Case closed!" And this is a typical liberal university we're talking about here. Good times were had by all.

You know, Ronald Ebens was drinking that night. Perhaps his attorney should have used the old "not used to alcohol" defense. I hear it works if you are the right religion/color.

[quote name='camoor']Y
Stop acting like such a goddamn spineless victim.[/QUOTE]
You were the one complaining about being picked on, friend.

 

[soulvengeance]

[quote name='Spokker']Why did the little boy raised by anti-racist transracial adoptee parents say, "I don't like black people." in the middle of a restaurant? Surely his parents would have shielded him from such blasphemy.

This all leads to an interesting question. Which came first, the stereotype or the little bit of truth it's based on?[/QUOTE]

I don't know, why didn't my brother and sister say that when they were kids in the middle of a restaurant? Surely if all children innately have a way of forming stereotypes, it should have applied to them, right? What about families with more then one race of children? Do they automatically hate each other? Dohdough, I guess I was specifically talking in that context that they were talking in that specific excerpt, I guess what I meant to say is that stereotypes come from learning it from someone/something, it's not something that someone is "born" with, for lack of a better way of explaining it.

 

[Spokker]

I'm not saying stereotypes aren't also learned, but as they grow up people can also form their own opinions about similarities within groups, good and bad.

If we didn't have stereotypes I don't think we could function as a society. They are a kind of mental shortcut so our feeble brains can deal with everything they absorb. I cannot keep track of the individual qualities of the nearly 7 billion people on this planet. I haven't the cognitive ability to do so, and neither do you.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='Spokker']Why did the little boy raised by anti-racist transracial adoptee parents say, "I don't like black people." in the middle of a restaurant? Surely his parents would have shielded him from such blasphemy.

This all leads to an interesting question. Which came first, the stereotype or the little bit of truth it's based on?[/QUOTE]
Neither, because it has nothing to do with truth and it evolved from something else.

[quote name='Spokker']I'm pretty sure white kids in all black schools who get the shit beaten out of them experience that because they happen to have had the only two parents in their neighborhood who didn't flee with all of the other white people. I don't know if you're looking at some kind of revenge angle here or something, but it's not the right way to go. Or is this why that racist tram tirade bitch is in jail while the racist Somali chicks went free after kicking the shit out of that fat white girl?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ence-sends-wrong-message-street-violence.html [/QUOTE]
The victim of the beating is not fat and the UK is pretty ing racist as well. Racism is not exactly the same everyhwere in the world.

One thing's for sure, I guess your sexist as well as racist. I'm not surprised.

I wonder if letting little violent skanks go free was the point of the civil rights movement across the pond.

I took an Asian-American film class to fulfill my school's diversity class requirement and they showed Who Killed Vincent Chin? in it. There was a funny moment after the movie in which this Asian guy goes, "Who killed Vincent Chin? I think it was the guy who hit him in the head with a bat." And then another student exclaimed, "Case closed!" And this is a typical liberal university we're talking about here. Good times were had by all.

And Ebens thinking all Asians look the same had absolutely nothing to do with it? And neither did xenophobic fear mongering of the 80's?

You know, Ronald Ebens was drinking that night. Perhaps his attorney should have used the old "not used to alcohol" defense. I hear it works if you are the right religion/color.

Since I know you're trolling, you can go yourself.

 

[Clak]

Damn liberal universities, we should only study what we want, not what some limp wristed liebrals think we should.

 

[soulvengeance]

[quote name='Spokker']I'm not saying stereotypes aren't also learned, but as they grow up people can also form their own opinions about similarities within groups, good and bad.

If we didn't have stereotypes I don't think we could function as a society. They are a kind of mental shortcut so our feeble brains can deal with everything they absorb. I cannot keep track of the individual qualities of the nearly 7 billion people on this planet. I haven't the cognitive ability to do so, and neither do you.[/QUOTE]

I agree it's a mental shortcut, but it's not because we can't process it, it's because we're too lazy to bother with the realization that people are individuals.

 

[Msut77]

Spokker thinks racism and negative stereotyping is ok because he is feeble minded (I don't agree with his assertion the rest of are). So there is that.

Cultural stereotypes are one thing but give me a ing break.

 

[Clak]

Stereotyping is ok because we're all too lazy (no i'm sorry, feeble) to realize that people are individuals? We're not the ing borg for crying out loud. If you can't be arsed to understand that all members of race A/B/C etc. aren't alike then damn.

 

[eldergamer]

And back to real Occupy news....

Occupy Portland shut down three ports during the day and two on the evening.

(According to the article) 325 longshoreman/union/working-class guys didnt get paid because of this.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/12/port_of_portland_closes_termin.html#incart_mce

Today, the ports are back open and it's business as usual.

 

[Clak]

If the business is the target the workers are the shield they hide behind.

 

[RedvsBlue]

So the real victims here are the 325 guys who didn't get paid? If their company really cared about their welfare, why didn't the company just step up and pay them for their shifts anyway?

Oh right, because they'd rather make Occupy Portland look like the bad guys in this situation...

 

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, that's the hard part about this. Any type of disruptions, boycotts etc. of corporations will always hit the low end workers of said corporation the hardest.

Corporations don't give a shit about their workers, so any losses from disruptions end up mainly coming out of worker pay.

So these types of protests and disruptions don't really have much impact. Efforts need more focused on Washington and changing the tax code for the top brackets, capital gains treated as regular income etc. that can directly hit the corporate fat cats.

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='RedvsBlue']So the real victims here are the 325 guys who didn't get paid? If their company really cared about their welfare, why didn't the company just step up and pay them for their shifts anyway?[/QUOTE]

Likewise, of the Occupy group really cared about their welfare, why didn't they step up and pay these folks for their missed pay?

[quote name='dmaul1114']Efforts need more focused on Washington [...][/QUOTE]

Be careful saying that kind of stuff around here... that'll get you lynched.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, that's the hard part about this. Any type of disruptions, boycotts etc. of corporations will always hit the low end workers of said corporation the hardest.

Corporations don't give a shit about their workers, so any losses from disruptions end up mainly coming out of worker pay.

So these types of protests and disruptions don't really have much impact. Efforts need more focused on Washington and changing the tax code for the top brackets, capital gains treated as regular income etc. that can directly hit the corporate fat cats.[/QUOTE]

I disagree.

I know you're in a university but business isn't as easy as "take the losses out of the workers pocket"

Getting the ports closed down screws up the distribution chain and disrupts deal making up and down the layers of the corporations involved.

When you have signed off on a contract, not following through on your part of the deal has consequences. In this case, shipping companies not being able to get the goods to their clients will result in lost revenue, could spell lost business, and could maybe even spark a breach of contract lawsuit.

It also causes a massive headache for management, dealing with pissed-off workers who lost a few days pay because of the protest. Ultimately they may have to eat it, but port employees (especially the unionized ones) aren't going to be quiet about it.

 

[RedvsBlue]

[quote name='UncleBob']Likewise, of the Occupy group really cared about their welfare, why didn't they step up and pay these folks for their missed pay?
[/QUOTE]

You must have missed the part where one of the reasons they're occupying in the first place is that they can't find gainful employment in the first place.

 

[Clak]

Misplaced anger abounds.

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='RedvsBlue']You must have missed the part where one of the reasons they're occupying in the first place is that they can't find gainful employment in the first place. [/QUOTE]

"We can't have jobs, no one gets jobs!" - eh?

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='camoor']I disagree.

I know you're in a university but business isn't as easy as "take the losses out of the workers pocket"

Getting the ports closed down screws up the distribution chain and disrupts deal making up and down the layers of the corporations involved.

When you have signed off on a contract, not following through on your part of the deal has consequences. In this case, shipping companies not being able to get the goods to their clients will result in lost revenue, could spell lost business, and could maybe even spark a breach of contract lawsuit.

It also causes a massive headache for management, dealing with pissed-off workers who lost a few days pay because of the protest. Ultimately they may have to eat it, but port employees (especially the unionized ones) aren't going to be quiet about it.[/QUOTE]
I second this. The estimated $9,000,000 saved in payroll doesn't make up for the estimated $700,000,000 loss from the shutdown. But this also highlights class conflict between capital and labor. While the workers lose a day, voluntary or not, this sends a pretty strong message to the power elite that a lot of people aren't ing around and spreads a little class consciousness.

I also think that using the political process to enact change is almost worthless at this point. There's too much corporate influence and everyone already knows how corrupt it is. The problem is that there isn't enough attention to the corporate side of the coin and the only way to get some progress is through educational movements such as Occupy.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='UncleBob']"We can't have jobs, no one gets jobs!" - eh?[/QUOTE]
Actually, it's more like business saying, "If you don't work for this amount, then we'll get someone else that'll work for cheaper, so you x2 and be greatful for the shit sandwich you're getting"

 

[dmaul1114]

[quote name='camoor']I disagree.

I know you're in a university but business isn't as easy as "take the losses out of the workers pocket"

Getting the ports closed down screws up the distribution chain and disrupts deal making up and down the layers of the corporations involved.

When you have signed off on a contract, not following through on your part of the deal has consequences. In this case, shipping companies not being able to get the goods to their clients will result in lost revenue, could spell lost business, and could maybe even spark a breach of contract lawsuit.

It also causes a massive headache for management, dealing with pissed-off workers who lost a few days pay because of the protest. Ultimately they may have to eat it, but port employees (especially the unionized ones) aren't going to be quiet about it.[/QUOTE]

I just don't see it doing any good. Corporations aren't going to change. Any change will have to be forced change from Washington with changes to tax code, regulations etc.

And I just don't see these kind of disruptions doing anything to help on that front. If any thing it hurts since some many of these blue collar morons who are hurt by corporate practices vote republican, support the "free market" and already have a negative view of the occupy protestors. They'll just latch on to the "workers lost pay" angle and continue opposing changes that would benefit them and voting republican.

All that kind of crap is why I really don't give much of a crap about these issues. I feel bad for the blue collar workers that realize the problems with the system, but it seems most are indoctrinated into free market captialism bullshit and vote republican and quite frankly people that naive deserve to get ed in the ass by the "free market" they support.

 

[RedvsBlue]

[quote name='UncleBob']"We can't have jobs, no one gets jobs!" - eh?[/QUOTE]

Really? You're gonna twist it that way nimrod? Actually, what I was pointing out is how the are they going to pay for the lost wages of the dock workers when they don't have jobs themselves.

You posted your original comment as if it's a joking, of course the occupiers won't pay their wages, manner only to flip it around into the most ridiculous statement that has no basis on what I said at all. Its no wonder so many people around here lose their patience with you.
[quote name='dmaul1114'] I feel bad for the blue collar workers that realize the problems with the system, but it seems most are indoctrinated into free market captialism bullshit and vote republican and quite frankly people that naive deserve to get ed in the ass by the "free market" they support.[/QUOTE]

This is the most succinct way I would sum up my feeling of the last 6 months-1 year and is the foundation for why there's very little to nothing that I support from the Republican party, conservatives, etc.

This, this is why there are still people that can try to tell you with a straight face that the 2008 market crash could have been avoided with less regulation. Indoctrination, plain and simple.

Sure capitalism as an ideal is great, everyone works hard, everyone gets ahead. The only problem though is that there's no such thing as a pure capitalist economy because as soon as some people start to get a little ahead of others they start exploiting those beneath them and leave them in dust in the quest for more greed, wealth, and power. Sure capitalism as an ideal is great but the ugly truth is that there is no such thing as a capitalist free market economy because there's too many dirt bags that exploit others and there's no way to kick them out of that position. Market driven my ass...

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='dohdough']Actually, it's more like business saying, "If you don't work for this amount, then we'll get someone else that'll work for cheaper, so you x2 and be greatful for the shit sandwich you're getting"[/QUOTE]

As opposed to "If you won't pay me this amount, then I'll find another job where they will pay me what I think I'm worth."?

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Really? You're gonna twist it that way nimrod? Actually, what I was pointing out is how the are they going to pay for the lost wages of the dock workers when they don't have jobs themselves.

You posted your original comment as if it's a joking, of course the occupiers won't pay their wages, manner only to flip it around into the most ridiculous statement that has no basis on what I said at all. Its no wonder so many people around here lose their patience with you.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry that you don't like it when someone points out the full consequences of a particular action.

Yes, when a bunch of people are upset because they can't find a job because the job market sucks and they express it in a way that interferes with the ability of those with jobs to keep those jobs, it's pretty clear that the first group isn't too concerned with the second group.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='UncleBob']As opposed to "If you won't pay me this amount, then I'll find another job where they will pay me what I think I'm worth."?[/quote]
This is not applicable to a large portion of the population. Since you like focusing on individuals, how about you go to your store manager and demand a cost of living increase along with your raise tomorrow and see what happens. And if by chance you get one, why don't you organize some other fellow Walmart workers that deserve the same thing do it.

I'm sorry that you don't like it when someone points out the full consequences of a particular action.

Yes, when a bunch of people are upset because they can't find a job because the job market sucks and they express it in a way that interferes with the ability of those with jobs to keep those jobs, it's pretty clear that the first group isn't too concerned with the second group.

Building class consciousness is pretty much the exact opposite of not being concerned.

 

[RedvsBlue]

[quote name='UncleBob']As opposed to "If you won't pay me this amount, then I'll find another job where they will pay me what I think I'm worth."?



I'm sorry that you don't like it when someone points out the full consequences of a particular action.

Yes, when a bunch of people are upset because they can't find a job because the job market sucks and they express it in a way that interferes with the ability of those with jobs to keep those jobs, it's pretty clear that the first group isn't too concerned with the second group.[/QUOTE]

And obviously the second group isn't too concerned about staying in the 99% anyway.

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='dohdough']This is not applicable to a large portion of the population. Since you like focusing on individuals, how about you go to your store manager and demand a cost of living increase along with your raise tomorrow and see what happens. And if by chance you get one, why don't you organize some other fellow Walmart workers that deserve the same thing do it.[/quote]

I know a co-worker who went to get another job locally.
They were going to have to take a $4/hour pay cut.
For our area - and not being a factory or coal mining job - we actually pay pretty well.

And I do agree - a large portion of the population aren't going to find a job that pays them what they think they're worth.

Building class consciousness is pretty much the exact opposite of not being concerned.

The ends justify the means...

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='UncleBob']I know a co-worker who went to get another job locally.
They were going to have to take a $4/hour pay cut.
For our area - and not being a factory or coal mining job - we actually pay pretty well.

And I do agree - a large portion of the population aren't going to find a job that pays them what they think they're worth.[/quote]
I knew you were going to se a bullshit tactic like that. That's why I said DESERVE a raise; not some random worker that shows up late and takes too many smoke breaks.

The ends justify the means...

Kinda like how shipping jobs overseas while promoting trickle-down economics right?

 

[Clak]

Not that bob ever would, but they'd be crushed like so many cockroaches under someone's heel.

 

[nasum]

[quote name='dohdough']Actually, it's more like business saying, "If you don't work for this amount, then we'll get someone else that'll work for cheaper, so you x2 and be greatful for the shit sandwich you're getting"[/QUOTE]

a bit of false equivalence there. Register jockey =/= neuro-surgeon.

Look man, we all agree that it'd be nice for everyone to make lots of money so that they can afford nice things and have a nice life, but you can't just decide that everyone makes $65k a year and call it good. It simply doesn't work that way.