And America Continues to Show it's True Colors. . .

[CensoredAlso]

but it never really makes that much of a dent in his finances.

Do you know what people mean when they say that? The wealthy person in question is still benefiting from policies and a society that works against the working class. He or she isn't in the same boat as the working class, will never hurt as they do, and can't understand their lives or what's important to them. That is what black people mean when they talk about white privilege for instance. They aren't just talking about conservatives.

 

[Censored]

Thing is, limousine liberals benefit from many of those policies. And their charity work will never truly hurt their wallets. It's not a sacrifice on their part.

All the more reason to give. If people give to charity when they don't have enough money for themselves, they become the new objects of charity. We need people who can afford to help.

 

[CensoredAlso]

All the more reason to give. If you give to charity when you don't have enough money for yourself, you become the new object of charity. We need people who can afford to help.

Again, I recommend the NYT quote I posted. It's not just about throwing money at people. It's about the culture you create as well.

 

[jvcarroll]

Dude, it's not shaming. It's keeping things in perspective.



Lol, now? They never left. I like you too but I think you see me as a conservative a lot of the time because I'm not your idea of what a liberal is.



Helping people isn't only confined to throwing money at them. Like the NYT quote I posted, it's also about the culture you create.

It appears you're forgetting what I've said in my posts or selectively leaving out huge portions, but I agree with you about 85% on this (and nearly 100% on particular bits). Regardless of your history on pages back, your initial post on this topic called out only libs, but later included conservatives. That's what I noted. You also left out what I said about spending time in soup kitchens and so many other parts of my posts, so of course I agree with what you that time is also valuable. At this point, I think there's more angst than listening so I'm going to drop this particular convo and start my day as I now work about 10-16 hours a day. The point is, you did shame folk for not doing more than you saw fit. You might use a different synonym, but that's semantics. I understand why you would. People should try to do as much good as possible with what they have, but making them do so is absolute socialism. I'd actually be for more democratic socialism to make the rich pay their fair share and to close the gap between hard working rich and hard working poor. That's part of what makes me a very proud liberal. I also believe we need to change policies that benefit the wealthy. Of course!!!! But I will never, ever disparage a rich person for just throwing money at something. That money goes to people who know better what to do with it and that's A OK with me! Have a great day!

 

[CensoredAlso]

called out only libs, but later included conservatives.

Context. We were talking about the term SJW. I said the limousine liberal term was better when talking about liberals who happen to be hypocrites. It doesn't mean all liberals are limousine liberals, it means it's a type of liberal.

You also left out what I said about spending time in soup kitchens

I did respond to that, I said if you do it on a regular basis like that, then that's not really what people mean by limousine liberal.

I think there's more angst than listening

Huh? I'm literally not even grimacing. We were just having a debate as we always do here.

you did shame folk for not doing more than you saw fit.

Again, please read that NYT quote. It's about the culture that's created.

But I will never, ever disparage a rich person for just throwing money at something.

Again, do you get why that gets criticized? Because helping people is far more complicated. The entire system is designed to hurt the working class. Giving them money won't change the system.

 

[Censored]

Do you know what people mean when they say that? The wealthy person in question is still benefiting from policies and a society that works against the working class. He or she isn't in the same boat as the working class, will never hurt as they do, and can't understand their lives or what's important to them. That is what black people mean when they talk about white privilege for instance. They aren't just talking about conservatives.

I think we all have to do our best to understand as much as possible, without actually being in that situation. That's what empathy is, trying to see things and understand them from another person's perspective.

 

[jvcarroll]

Context. We were talking about the term SJW. I said the limousine liberal term was better when talking about liberals who happen to be hypocrites. It doesn't mean all liberals are limousine liberals, it means it's a type of liberal.



I did respond to that, I said if you do it on a regular basis like that, then that's not really what people mean by limousine liberal.



Huh? I'm literally not even grimacing. We were just having a debate as we always do here.



Again, please read that NYT quote. It's about the culture that's created.



Again, do you get why that gets criticized? Because helping people is far more complicated. The entire system is designed to hurt the working class. Giving them money won't change the system.

You're conflating two things. While I agree with part of what you've said about longterm good, I completely disagree about shortterm good and the idea that all of these wealthy donors actually change policy. Most of them don't. And none of those folk, conservative or liberal, deserve to be shamed for giving no matter what you or I think about that contribution. Anyway, I'm out. Peace. Oh, and I did read all of that article. I subscribe. I'd already read it.

 

[CensoredAlso]

And none of those folk, conservative or liberal, deserve to be shamed for giving no matter what you or I think about that contribution.

A lot of African Americans, and minorities in general, would disagree with you there.

And there's also the example of Andrew Carnegie. He donated a lot of his fortune to creating libraries, which he hoped would help the poor. The poor, however, made it very clear that they preferred food over books.

 

[Censored]

Helping people isn't only confined to throwing money at them. Like the NYT quote I posted, it's also about the culture you create.

Well, it's complicated. Yes, give a man a fish and he eats for one day, teach him to fish and he eats for the rest of his life, BUT feed him no fish while you're teaching him and he starves to death before he can learn.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Well, it's complicated. Yes, give a man a fish and he eats for one day, teach him to fish and he eats for the rest of his life, BUT feed him no fish while you're teaching him and he starves to death before he can learn.

I'm not saying LL's aren't trying to teach them to fish. I'm saying LL's benefit from a system that guarantees they will always attend better schools than the people they're trying to help.
Again, it's privilege. And if I was putting down only conservatives, I think you would agree.