PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on February 07, 2019, 10:27:17 AM
-
I’ve been hearing some assertions from Republican friends that Democrats want blacks and Latinos as their slaves. Obviously nobody here would make that assertion (I think), but there’s a different thing going on. That is relevant because if you make the wrong assumption about your opponent’s motivations then you react ineffectively to what they do.
Data point 1 - I ran across Rabbi Daniel Lapin on TV last night. No, I’m not Jewish, but the guy makes a lot of sense (up to a point). His take is that Democrats support the programs they do, not because they are trying to push programs of dependency onto people, but because people are trying to pull those programs down. One of Rabbi Lapin’s main themes is that we people are not animals because we have a higher condition that is reflected in how we live. But so many people want to abdicate responsibility for their lives so they they can do anything, as they as not responsible. The “animal” class is nnot being pushed into slavery, they are just demanding an abdication of their responsibility so they can act like animals.
Data point 2 - I read the Fox News article today about how San Francisco because the “Slum by the Sea”. And it hits me that this is exactly what the rabbi is talking about. The people there are giving up on trying to be moral so they can do whatever they want. They are demanding to be allowed to become animals and in order to win their support, Democrats bend over backwards to help them. The article pointed out - San Fran police will snag someone instantly if they have an open beer, but they will walk right past someone shooting up drugs. The inmates are running the asylum.
This could be a major difference between parties - acceptance of personal responsibility vs not. It’s a working theory, probably needs more work.
-
This could be a major difference between parties - acceptance of personal responsibility vs not. It’s a working theory, probably needs more work.
Completely agree. One group wants to shift all responsibility for their lives to others. Those others actually think they know better than anyone else what's good for you. They want to take care of the masses, and the masses want to let them because it's too hard to work and they want to be free to do whatever regardless of consequences.
The other group says "you're on your own" to sink or swim as you see fit. If you fail through no fault of your own we'll help you out. But otherwise success or failure is on you. There is a collective shift of responsibility for a limited number of things (like national defense) to a group of specialists to deal with so they can get on with their lives.
I think it's the difference in management styles. On one hand you have micromanagers who monitor every aspect of their workers' jobs because they are so much smarter. After all, they are managers and by that position must be smarter.
On the other hand you have managers who think their job is to clear the crap out of the way so their workers can excel and solve problems on their own.
-
Jordan Peterson has a brilliant take on this that got me a bit away from the hard line conservative "be responsible" position.
First of all, understand there is an IQ distribution. As a point of reference, the army decided they can't do much with soldiers with an IQ less than 85. They are just too dense to function in battle. Being a grunt is not hugely intellectually challenging, but you do need some level of intelligence.
Now, realize that the world is fast moving ever more technologically advanced. The jobs that can be done by very low IQ people are vanishing. If the military cannot make use of people lower than 85, the private job market is fast coming to the same point. So what are all these people doing to do?
The conservative solution has been "let them get a job! It's not my responsibility to support them." Well, the jobs they are able to do are vanishing. That's not going to be viable in the future.
The liberal solution is to just give them free money (guaranteed minimum income for example) whether you're working or not. That's not a solution either, in fact, it is terrible. Because when people are given free money without earning it, they have no purpose in life. They are at loose ends, and for males this means gangs looking for trouble. For females, early and prolific baby making.
Peterson says, he doesn't know what the answer is.
-
I'm not sure they want to shift responsibility to others so much as just rid themselves of it. There's a view that says it is much easier to be taken care of than to have to do the adult work of fending for yourself. In that light, Democrats are just being politicians giving people what they want.
Another thing the rabbi was talking last night was adherence to rules. We all muddle through this life by requiring rules to be followed, but sometimes benevolently allowing them to be broken. I think the why on that is because rules are inexactly trying to encode a principle, but it's up to we humans to decide when the rule breaks that principle...but it can't do it too often.
One of the worst thing you can do to someone is declare that they are so incompetent that they cannot make a living. That involuntarily turns a person in livestock that you are just feeding until they die. Actually, less than livestock because your animals have a purpose. It was bad enough when we see that they're doing it to themselves, how much worse when it is forced upon them.
I will warrant that there are certain jobs which requires some level of functioning and each is different. For reference, IQ has a mean of 100 and a std dev of 15. 15% of people score below 85 but only 2.2% score below 70. I'm an advocate that even these people can do SOMETHING useful. Bagging groceries is the classic job for people who aren't as bright. My father always talked about digging ditches. Picking crops comes to mind. Almost everyone, including a lot of people below 85 IQ, can be taught to do something that helps society and therefore can be paid for it. Everyone has value and nobody should be allowed to opt out of that because it's easier to be a child.
-
It has been my observation that democrats (communists) follow the example set by the olde English aristocracy, who kept everyone locked into positions of subservancy to protect their own elevated and deserving lifestyle.
The worst thing that could happen to an English Lord was for ‘lower’ classes of people to succeed and achieve outside the narrow and strict boundaries set up by their betters. It diluted, or threatened to dilute the power of the ruling class for lower classes to achieve independence through success.
Democrats are communists in all but name. They adore holding down others to elevate themselves and that is mostly because democrats (and all other types of communists) don’t often do things that one could consider great works of sweat equity. They would far rather regulate everyone else into poverty than work themselves into wealth.
-
I'm not sure they want to shift responsibility to others so much as just rid themselves of it. There's a view that says it is much easier to be taken care of than to have to do the adult work of fending for yourself. In that light, Democrats are just being politicians giving people what they want.
Another thing the rabbi was talking last night was adherence to rules. We all muddle through this life by requiring rules to be followed, but sometimes benevolently allowing them to be broken. I think the why on that is because rules are inexactly trying to encode a principle, but it's up to we humans to decide when the rule breaks that principle...but it can't do it too often.
One of the worst thing you can do to someone is declare that they are so incompetent that they cannot make a living. That involuntarily turns a person in livestock that you are just feeding until they die. Actually, less than livestock because your animals have a purpose. It was bad enough when we see that they're doing it to themselves, how much worse when it is forced upon them.
I will warrant that there are certain jobs which requires some level of functioning and each is different. For reference, IQ has a mean of 100 and a std dev of 15. 15% of people score below 85 but only 2.2% score below 70. I'm an advocate that even these people can do SOMETHING useful. Bagging groceries is the classic job for people who aren't as bright. My father always talked about digging ditches. Picking crops comes to mind. Almost everyone, including a lot of people below 85 IQ, can be taught to do something that helps society and therefore can be paid for it. Everyone has value and nobody should be allowed to opt out of that because it's easier to be a child.
I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to opt out, but these jobs are going away. Groceries are being bagged by yourself more and more with self checkouts. In fact the new thing is no checkout; we'll go into a store, tap our phone at a turnstile, then as we pick up items they will automatically be entered into our app.
Picking crops will eventually be done with robotics. Mechanical picking has been hampered where fruits and produce require gentle handling but technology will solve this in the future. Same for drivers, eventually when cars are fully automated.
-
I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to opt out, but these jobs are going away. Groceries are being bagged by yourself more and more with self checkouts. In fact the new thing is no checkout; we'll go into a store, tap our phone at a turnstile, then as we pick up items they will automatically be entered into our app.
Picking crops will eventually be done with robotics. Mechanical picking has been hampered where fruits and produce require gentle handling but technology will solve this in the future. Same for drivers, eventually when cars are fully automated.
This is where I'm really torn. I believe that most people really want to work and be productive. If a person has a severe mental or physical handicap should we create a job for them? Even if a robot can do that job more efficiently, is it better for society to not use robotics in that case?
I'm reminded of the book "Brave New World." Epsilons are the lowest caste members and have severe mental disabilities. In the book, an Epsilon was employed as an elevator operator. Clearly elevator riders could push the buttons themselves more efficiently or AI could be used to self-direct the elevator, but is it better on the whole to employ Epsilons? They are happy and productive. Perhaps happier than if they were totally provided for and doing nothing productive.
Note that this is completely different from the latte-sipping pajama boy snowflake who doesn't feel like working. A work camp might be just the thing for them.
-
I think we may regret all the automation. People were made to need each other and to interact. I always gravitate to the human cashier because it’s more fun to talk with someone. I don’t use the cash machines ... I go in and chat with the teller. Through the years some really stellar relationships have resulted from my natural desire to connect with people I meet along the way.
We were also made with the need to feel useful and to be connected to a group, to feel part of a larger community. So yes, the Epsilon should be there in the elevator, feeling useful and being with people.
We have a company in town called Columbia Industries where mentally challenged people can be gainfully employed. They do a variety of things onsite on contract, and operate a thrift store and document shredding operation. You can tell the workers are proud of their work, and what a joy it must be for their families to see them happy, productive, and in some cases relatively independent.
I think we should create places for people with needs like this. The surest way to create a dysfunctional human is to isolate him, fund him, feed him, and leave him up to his own entertainments. I think it twists him in on himself. From there you get stalkers, school shooters, pedophiles and the like.
-
I think we may regret all the automation.
If we didn't have minimum wage laws, we would have much less automation, and those Epsilons would have a lot of work.
In lieu of that, then we need to create "make work" jobs for the productively challenged. Years ago I worked in the marketing department of a major Atlanta bank. We put together a newcomer kit composed of dozens of coupons, informational brochures, maps etc. We could have paid a company to mechanically sort and box those papers, but I knew a woman that ran a charity that catered to the "mentally challenged" (we called them retarded back then). I proposed, and the board approved that we paid her almost the same amount as we would have paid the automated company to have her "kids" build the kits. Everyone was happy with the results. They didn't need quite as much public funding, the "kids" had fun and felt a sense of self worth and we saved a few dollars (not many).
-
I suppose I'm just a grumpy recluse, as I will purposely take a machine over any teller/checkout person. I can do it quicker and be gone.