djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,239
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 20, 2015 22:46:10 GMT -5
party? who said party? did you mean ideology? i think that you are mistaken. liberals are pretty much the opposite of Darwininsts, in my experience. they want to prop up every failing branch of the tree. Subsidizing failure is arguably a goal of social Darwinists as well. Breed dependence, withdraw support (and retreat to a safe distance), let the unwashed masses kill each other off, leaving only a worthy remnant. interesting theory. link?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 21, 2015 6:08:12 GMT -5
Subsidizing failure is arguably a goal of social Darwinists as well. Breed dependence, withdraw support (and retreat to a safe distance), let the unwashed masses kill each other off, leaving only a worthy remnant. interesting theory. link? Find any depopulation conspiracy website you consider authoritative that mentions Bertrand Russell's theories, Cecil Rhodes' theories, and Thomas Malthus' famous essay, and you'll find some version of the above argument. I'm not endorsing it. I'm just saying that engineering dependence and then withdrawing is a remarkably effective way of culling a population. There are numerous historical examples of it being used as a tool of warfare.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,939
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 21, 2015 8:34:43 GMT -5
Exactly. There is a huge void. And you have to ask yourself why. Why women don't make it to the top? Why women get the jobs that pay 78 cents to a dollar? If that is not gender inequality, I don't know what it is.
Picture it this way. Suppose only 1 in every 100 CEOs is African American. That African American CEO is compensated as well as his or her peers. So you can say there is no discrimination. But if you take a second look you will see that African Americans systematically end with the lower paying jobs. That's racial inequality, I would say. How come they don't make it to the top?
There are reasons why women end up working the low-paid jobs. I don't know exactly what they are, but it's not coincidence. Personally I believe lacking access to maternity leave and affordable child care plays a huge role in this. It's not the only reason, but it contributes in keeping women down.
Ava, you graduated not that long ago right? Was it with an MBA from a tier one school? No. So you won't be offered a C level job at a Fortune 500 company. Is that proof of sexism, or simply the result of choices you made? You used to be a cashier in a cafeteria, which I'm assuming was fairly low paying work. Was that proof of sexism and men keeping you down or simply the result of choices you made. After accounting for choice in terms of education received, industry worked in, decision to work full or part time, etc women make almost exactly the same amount as men. In some industries it's a few cents less on the dollar, in some it's a few cents more on the dollar. The only way to close the deficit that you see without accounting for choice is to take away our ability to choose. The government would get to dictate which degree you got, which industry you worked in, and whether or not you could go to part time after having babies. Equality for everyone. If that doesn't sound appealing women are going to have to accept that teaching third grade pays less than operating a crane on top of 20 story buildings. It's not sexist, it just is. When you look at who gets promoted out of middle management ranks in companies, and you compare their qualifications, white men still end up getting promoted over women and non-whites. I've heard it explained that people are more likely to promote people who remind them of themselves. So if you're a white male executive, you'll graviate to the white male candidates. You're college degree can only get your foot into the door. Hard work gets you noticed. But there are still biases when it comes to who gets promoted onto the top floor. Just look at the number of female and black CEO's sometime, and see how that compares to the number of female and black members of society - and that's coming at a time when more women are graduating college than men, so it can't be that there aren't enough qualified female candidates.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 21, 2015 8:40:46 GMT -5
Exactly. There is a huge void. And you have to ask yourself why. Why women don't make it to the top? Why women get the jobs that pay 78 cents to a dollar? If that is not gender inequality, I don't know what it is.
Picture it this way. Suppose only 1 in every 100 CEOs is African American. That African American CEO is compensated as well as his or her peers. So you can say there is no discrimination. But if you take a second look you will see that African Americans systematically end with the lower paying jobs. That's racial inequality, I would say. How come they don't make it to the top?
There are reasons why women end up working the low-paid jobs. I don't know exactly what they are, but it's not coincidence. Personally I believe lacking access to maternity leave and affordable child care plays a huge role in this. It's not the only reason, but it contributes in keeping women down.
Ava, you graduated not that long ago right? Was it with an MBA from a tier one school? No. So you won't be offered a C level job at a Fortune 500 company. Is that proof of sexism, or simply the result of choices you made? You used to be a cashier in a cafeteria, which I'm assuming was fairly low paying work. Was that proof of sexism and men keeping you down or simply the result of choices you made. After accounting for choice in terms of education received, industry worked in, decision to work full or part time, etc women make almost exactly the same amount as men. In some industries it's a few cents less on the dollar, in some it's a few cents more on the dollar. The only way to close the deficit that you see without accounting for choice is to take away our ability to choose. The government would get to dictate which degree you got, which industry you worked in, and whether or not you could go to part time after having babies. Equality for everyone. If that doesn't sound appealing women are going to have to accept that teaching third grade pays less than operating a crane on top of 20 story buildings. It's not sexist, it just is. Absolutely. I chose a low paying career. My first career choice would have been also low paying and not family friendly at all. After my kids were older I could have chosen to use my brain and go into a more well paying field but chose not to. I made those choices, no one made them for me. Btw, all teachers at my experience level were paid the same wage. Most had spouses to help out. I had real estate. My girlfriends who chose different majors make big bucks and are in high demand. Those that chose even worse majors than education are lucky to still be married to someone who makes money.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Dec 21, 2015 8:57:38 GMT -5
Ava, you graduated not that long ago right? Was it with an MBA from a tier one school? No. So you won't be offered a C level job at a Fortune 500 company. Is that proof of sexism, or simply the result of choices you made? You used to be a cashier in a cafeteria, which I'm assuming was fairly low paying work. Was that proof of sexism and men keeping you down or simply the result of choices you made. After accounting for choice in terms of education received, industry worked in, decision to work full or part time, etc women make almost exactly the same amount as men. In some industries it's a few cents less on the dollar, in some it's a few cents more on the dollar. The only way to close the deficit that you see without accounting for choice is to take away our ability to choose. The government would get to dictate which degree you got, which industry you worked in, and whether or not you could go to part time after having babies. Equality for everyone. If that doesn't sound appealing women are going to have to accept that teaching third grade pays less than operating a crane on top of 20 story buildings. It's not sexist, it just is. When you look at who gets promoted out of middle management ranks in companies, and you compare their qualifications, white men still end up getting promoted over women and non-whites. I've heard it explained that people are more likely to promote people who remind them of themselves. So if you're a white male executive, you'll graviate to the white male candidates. You're college degree can only get your foot into the door. Hard work gets you noticed. But there are still biases when it comes to who gets promoted onto the top floor. Just look at the number of female and black CEO's sometime, and see how that compares to the number of female and black members of society - and that's coming at a time when more women are graduating college than men, so it can't be that there aren't enough qualified female candidates. And over the next 20-30 years we will see the effects of a higher number of women graduating from college (while also seeing the effects of not caring about the gender education gap continually growing), although career interruptions and being more likely to place a higher value on flexible working hours still play a factor. Also add into the discussion, you have to mention even in our "enlightened" society, it is still considered far more acceptable for women to stay home with kids or take maternity/paternity leave for any extended period of time; men still tend to work longer hours and the types of degrees men and women tend to get; don't forget that you also have to factor in how much money a spouse makes because those with higher earning spouses are also more likely to have the option of leaving the workforce or even choosing to stay in jobs that offer fulfillment over income. In the end just comparing top ranked people to the overall society is rarely ever (if ever) a good way to "prove" racial and gender bias.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,239
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 21, 2015 13:34:48 GMT -5
interesting theory. link? Find any depopulation conspiracy website you consider authoritative that mentions Bertrand Russell's theories, Cecil Rhodes' theories, and Thomas Malthus' famous essay, and you'll find some version of the above argument. I'm not endorsing it. I'm just saying that engineering dependence and then withdrawing is a remarkably effective way of culling a population. There are numerous historical examples of it being used as a tool of warfare. never heard of it. thanks for the primer.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 21, 2015 14:21:29 GMT -5
Find any depopulation conspiracy website you consider authoritative that mentions Bertrand Russell's theories, Cecil Rhodes' theories, and Thomas Malthus' famous essay, and you'll find some version of the above argument. I'm not endorsing it. I'm just saying that engineering dependence and then withdrawing is a remarkably effective way of culling a population. There are numerous historical examples of it being used as a tool of warfare. never heard of it. thanks for the primer. Historically, a popular variation was for a wealthy principality to come in to a state and flood the markets with gold, ivory, linens, fine spices, and every kind of luxury item, buying up basic supplies and non-perishables at astronomical premiums. This naturally resulted in two things: i) the principality would be much adored by the people, who believed they were being enriched, and ii) inflation would skyrocket. As the principality sensed the coming of a drought or a long war or a harsh winter, they'd pack up, say their goodbyes, and leave with the fond blessings of the people. When hard times set in, the people would find themselves with a severe shortage of food and supplies. Eventually reserves would dwindle to critical levels, people would start to die, and hyperinflation would set in. To expedite the process, the principality would sometimes insulate the state from outside trade via clandestine means (e.g. looting caravans, waging peripheral wars, etc.). Eventually the leaders of the state would come begging the principality for food and supplies, which it would supply in exchange for getting its gold and luxury goods back at a profit in addition to lucrative and influential positions within state government. What's truly sad and ironic is that by the time this end game occurred, the people of the state were so desperate that getting their own food and supplies back made them even more grateful to the principality, whom they viewed as a saviour. Few, if any, realized that the entire boom-bust cycle had been engineered. It's arguably the most successful means of conquest in human history. The major limitation to its use is that the principality must be significantly wealthier and more powerful than the state it intends to conquer for the strategy to work. Many believe the strategy is still being widely used today, only with the controlled expansion and collapse of credit, and in multiple waves. The US founding fathers, especially Jefferson and Franklin, greatly feared that America might fall due to economic warfare of this nature. They viewed it as a means for the moneychangers to consolidate power, however, not specifically as a means of culling Americans. The die-off of so-called "useless eaters" just happens to be collateral damage. Social Darwinism holds the sacrifice to be necessary and justifiable.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 22, 2015 9:43:45 GMT -5
In what principality(s) or duchy(s) did this happen Virgil? I'm curious. I don't recall it, but I studied primarily modern European history. You'd have to study the lesser conquests of the Babylonian empire, the Greco-Macedonian empire, the Medo-Persian empire, the various incarnations of the Roman empire. Unfortunately I can't remember specific examples off-hand. It's one of those things where I read some essays or book chapters about it, managed to remember the principle (most likely because I found it fascinating), but didn't manage to remember any of the specifics. We're laughably off-topic anyway. ETA: When I said "principality", I was generally referring to a foreign power ruled by an autarch. A kingdom or empire. Apparently "principality" refers specifically to rule by a prince or princess.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,239
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 22, 2015 13:33:03 GMT -5
OK, thanks. I'm guessing that the areas in question were strategically located ports or other "towns" of strategic importance that were not great in population, and made this more economical than siege warfare, or simple frontal attack and massacre.
Certainly it had to be very small in scale and isolated to make it economically worthy and controllable. BTW, yeah, a principality is feudal entity. I knew what you meant, but was just trying to keep the definitions straight.
I'm not very familiar with the Babylonian or Persian Empires (nor do I currently have interest....) but the Greeks and the Romans I can dig into a bit if I get a chance. An amazingly cunning form of conquest. I've never heard of it. evil is the word that came to my mind. which is why i have a hard time imagining it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,239
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 22, 2015 14:23:41 GMT -5
Yes, it is very, very much an evil concept. One which I am amazed has not garnered greater attention, due to it's perverse cunning.
However to practically employ it would be very difficult and expensive, and I can't believe it has ever been utilized to any substantial extent. precisely. the other thing that crossed my mind is that it would be so obvious that you could not even START doing it without causing a huge uproar. of course, the proposition is probably that all forms of welfare are a Trojan Horse for these goals, but i don't buy it.
|
|