Started By
Message
Starving, suffering, shame - A solution for society's ills?
Posted on 6/9/15 at 5:56 pm
Posted on 6/9/15 at 5:56 pm
Everybody here, of every race, knows a number of people in their life who will not, can not "get their shite together" until there is the threat of real suffering on the line.
We all know screw-ups who will fail, fail and fail until they are facing real jail time, or near death from drug overdose, etc. These are people, of every race, every background, who simply can't get their shite together. They cannot and will not set boundaries for themselves, so in many cases, the state has to step in and set the boundaries, by arresting them, fining them, etc.
I think a huge portion of our society's ills is that we have a large underclass of people who know no real fear or shame.
They do not fear hunger, because the State will not allow them to go hungry.
They do not fear homelessness, because the State will not allow them to become homeless.
They do not fear the opinion or shaming of their families or society at large, because we've become so incredibly PC and "overly compassionate" and "Ain't nobody judge me but God", etc.
This underclass cannot and will not create boundaries for themselves. It is only under the threat of real pain, suffering, or brute force that these people, of all races and groups, will "get their shite together".
This is displayed in the arrogance, and utter lack of respect for society's rules and (past) norms that most of these people show.
I say we need some starving, some suffering, and some shame. Some consequences for being a total frick up.
As it stands, those people who don't set boundaries for themselves face few to no real consequences. That's why we see our culture declining and spiraling into narcissism and dysfunction. In the past, before the Great Society and Welfare State, the poor knew real hardship. They knew that if they didn't work, they'd be hungry. They'd be homeless. They appreciated it when others gave them assistance, because the assistance of others was generosity, and it was all that stood between the underclass and real suffering.
We all know screw-ups who will fail, fail and fail until they are facing real jail time, or near death from drug overdose, etc. These are people, of every race, every background, who simply can't get their shite together. They cannot and will not set boundaries for themselves, so in many cases, the state has to step in and set the boundaries, by arresting them, fining them, etc.
I think a huge portion of our society's ills is that we have a large underclass of people who know no real fear or shame.
They do not fear hunger, because the State will not allow them to go hungry.
They do not fear homelessness, because the State will not allow them to become homeless.
They do not fear the opinion or shaming of their families or society at large, because we've become so incredibly PC and "overly compassionate" and "Ain't nobody judge me but God", etc.
This underclass cannot and will not create boundaries for themselves. It is only under the threat of real pain, suffering, or brute force that these people, of all races and groups, will "get their shite together".
This is displayed in the arrogance, and utter lack of respect for society's rules and (past) norms that most of these people show.
I say we need some starving, some suffering, and some shame. Some consequences for being a total frick up.
As it stands, those people who don't set boundaries for themselves face few to no real consequences. That's why we see our culture declining and spiraling into narcissism and dysfunction. In the past, before the Great Society and Welfare State, the poor knew real hardship. They knew that if they didn't work, they'd be hungry. They'd be homeless. They appreciated it when others gave them assistance, because the assistance of others was generosity, and it was all that stood between the underclass and real suffering.
10
Posted on 6/9/15 at 6:38 pm to wmr
I get what you're saying and I do t disagree with it per se, but I can't support a political position that just says let those people go and counting on churches and charities to pick up the slack. I'm not saying that I have the perfect solution, but done people (and I'm not saying you're one of them) seem to want to take it to the opposite extreme and I just can't go along with that.
Posted on 6/9/15 at 6:49 pm to wmr
Sometimes I wish the Gov would stop these welfare programs.
Sink or swim time.
Yes it would be awful for some people, and the kids don't deserve it, but it will be the only way for them to depend and provide for themselves instead of Uncle Sam.
Sink or swim time.
Yes it would be awful for some people, and the kids don't deserve it, but it will be the only way for them to depend and provide for themselves instead of Uncle Sam.
This post was edited on 6/9/15 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 6/9/15 at 6:50 pm to wmr
The assistance system is broken and needs to be fixed, how to fix it I have no idea, but to completely remove it will solve nothing. The first place to start is stopping all the fraud, after that I got nothing.
Posted on 6/9/15 at 7:19 pm to wmr
I think you have a poor understanding of the power of addiction. I'll just leave it at that.
Posted on 6/9/15 at 7:36 pm to CrimsonChin
quote:
think you have a poor understanding of the power of addiction. I'll just leave it at that.
I know he does but in his defense I don't think that's what he is referring to.
Posted on 6/9/15 at 10:59 pm to wmr
quote:
wmr
green
arrow
yes
Posted on 6/10/15 at 8:42 am to wmr
quote:
They do not fear hunger, because the State will not allow them to go hungry.
Yes it will. Food stamps are only a SUPPLEMENTAL benefit to help people eat. They aren't, and aren't supposed to be, enough to actually feed someone. And unless you have a place to cook it, the food you get with food stamps won't help, because they can only be used to buy cold, unprepared food.
quote:
They do not fear homelessness, because the State will not allow them to become homeless.
Huh? This doesn't even make sense. There are thousands of homeless in every major city. "The state" absolutely will and absolutely does "allow" people to become homeless.
quote:
They do not fear the opinion or shaming of their families or society at large, because we've become so incredibly PC and "overly compassionate" and "Ain't nobody judge me but God", etc.
So you want to waste your time pointing and laughing at homeless people?
quote:
This underclass cannot and will not create boundaries for themselves. It is only under the threat of real pain, suffering, or brute force that these people, of all races and groups, will "get their shite together".
Sleeping outside in 10 degree weather, having their toes chewed on by rats and getting robbed and beaten by strangers on a regular basis isn't enough, but shaming them will do the trick?
quote:
I say we need some starving, some suffering, and some shame. Some consequences for being a total frick up. As it stands, those people who don't set boundaries for themselves face few to no real consequences.
Ridiculous. Try living as a homeless person for even a couple of days and then tell me there aren't consequences.
quote:
That's why we see our culture declining and spiraling into narcissism and dysfunction. In the past, before the Great Society and Welfare State, the poor knew real hardship. They knew that if they didn't work, they'd be hungry. They'd be homeless.
Most homeless people didn't get there because they thought it would be a great lifestyle choice and the government would take good care of them. Shutting down mental institutions and kicking the patients out on the street created the homeless problem for the most part. A large percentage of homeless people are simply mental patients with no hospital to take care of them.
This post was edited on 6/10/15 at 8:45 am
Posted on 6/10/15 at 8:53 am to Agforlife
quote:
The assistance system is broken and needs to be fixed, how to fix it I have no idea, but to completely remove it will solve nothing.
One fix would be that people on assistance have to work/do service for the assistance they receive. Pick up trash, mow lawns, clean dishes, etc. This reduces the strain on the govt and also allows the people on assistance to actually be productive and feel good about themselves instead of just sitting around accepting a hand-out month after month.
Posted on 6/10/15 at 11:39 am to wmr
quote:
We all know screw-ups who will fail, fail and fail until they are facing real jail time, or near death from drug overdose, etc. These are people, of every race, every background, who simply can't get their shite together. They cannot and will not set boundaries for themselves, so in many cases, the state has to step in and set the boundaries, by arresting them, fining them, etc.
Sociopaths, narcissistic personalities, and a host of related mental types will not magically disappear if you bring back shame. To make such a simple and broad statement means a lack of understanding of cause and effect. The is not to say that bringing back shame does not have some beneficial effects tho. No contest divorce, children out of wedlock, and a host of former "shame" motivators can be helpful, but unless applied to the top of the financial pyramid will have no affect filtering down.
If Madonna is celebrated for fatherless single family households, is it any wonder Suzie Jane in the trailer park see's that as the example to follow. Living 6 months in Nevada while awaiting divorce was a solution only open to the people with the money to live with no job for half a year. Divorce rates were low because poor folks could not afford to get them. Bring shame back to the wealthy and it will filter down to the rest of us. Ignore this, and blame the poor for being poor and you will never bring about change.
The larger issue is applying scottish thrift back to american. In short, it is not what you make, but how you spend it that bring value to a country or society. Spending billions on a government white elephant or a military albatross is the quicker road to fix what ails us as a country. If this is too broad then just apply it to the SEC as a microcosm. A former AD may have earned 100K per year and ran an office and staff on 500K per year. Their replacement may now cost a million per year and an office spending 5 million per year.
The key question is twofold.
a) Under scottish thrift, how do you justify a tenfold increase when a mere 1 to 5 percent increase was available.
b) If you increase the very top tenfold, but shrink the middle by half and keep the bottom with no increase to pay for it, what have you said to the public at large?
Democrats blame the Republicans and Republicans blame the Democrats while both lift money from the wallets of the citizens they were put in place to represent. Face it, conflict, and blaming the other guy has become the cornerstone of modern america and will lead to her downfall from within long before a foreign army breaches her soil. Rome fell this way as the folks on top convinced their populace of "us" vs "them" instead of "we the people". While I agree in smaller government neither the Democrats or Republicans will act on this because it is not in the best interest of their parties to do so.
In any society you will have the poor and the hungry, many of whom really can not fend for themselves, but to blame the ills of america on them is shameful on your part indeed.
Posted on 6/10/15 at 6:24 pm to wmr
quote:
They do not fear the opinion or shaming of their families or society at large, because we've become so incredibly PC and "overly compassionate" and "Ain't nobody judge me but God", etc.
This underclass cannot and will not create boundaries for themselves. It is only under the threat of real pain, suffering, or brute force that these people, of all races and groups, will "get their shite together".
thought you were talking about bankers there for a minute
what's rumored to be going on at Deutschland Bank puts this behavior to shame
Posted on 6/10/15 at 6:33 pm to wmr
quote:
In the past, before the Great Society and Welfare State, the poor knew real hardship. They knew that if they didn't work, they'd be hungry. They'd be homeless.
To be fair, back then people could get jobs just by walking up and asking.
Posted on 6/10/15 at 9:58 pm to wmr
You're very sheltered if you honestly believe there aren't a considerable number of hungry and/or homeless people in this country. It's a dangerous way to be ignorant, because it leads to terrible solutions to society's ills, especially when combined with your obvious starry-eyed and unrealistic perspective of times past.
Posted on 6/11/15 at 2:00 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
Yes it will. Food stamps are only a SUPPLEMENTAL benefit to help people eat. They aren't, and aren't supposed to be, enough to actually feed someone. And unless you have a place to cook it, the food you get with food stamps won't help, because they can only be used to buy cold, unprepared food.
Tell that to the people with the EBT cards shopping at Whole Foods.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News