It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Social Justice Demands the Unequal Treatment of Individuals

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 10:19 AM
Scotland has just announced it wishes to legally recognise a third gender (non binary) or neo-binearaidh (for the scots gaelic among you)
and is the first country within the UK to do so!

edit on 27-11-2018 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 03:50 PM
a reply to: Dfairlite

Generational poverty is learned and practiced. It's really that simple. Now there may be a sob story here or there that defies it but there's also a contrasting story of the guy who gets out of the ghetto and makes something of himself. Sadly, poor people are poor because they have poor ways. If they don't, they don't remain poor for very long.

I want to address this specific comment as it is both a common and outdated opinion.

Recent research in poverty is proving that it is not simply “poor people are poor because they have poor ways,” (i.e. sub-par behavioral issues) but that SCARCITY ITSELF CREATES THE BEHAVIORS THAT PERPETUATE POVERTY.

In other words, the ENVIRONMENT OF SCARCITY, not the individual placed into it, CAUSES “poor ways” to manifest in humans.

It’s natural to look at the intended clients and blame a lack of personal responsibility, the authors explain. But, as Mullainathan and Shafir have shown through their own work, all individuals stuck in a cycle of scarcity will inevitably find themselves plagued with similar slips in performance; focus often suffers, long-term planning gives way to immediate financial fire-fighting, follow-through on commitments often becomes sporadic.

The “cream of the crop” are not immune to this brain/behavior function when it comes to scarcity. It doesn’t only effect some group with ‘generational character defects’ but can and does effect everyone in the general population fairly equally. Imagine that.

You or I or most anyone, according to this new research, could easily be effected by poverty just the same as if we were to be sleep deprived, or malnourished or under certain other forms of “scarcity stress” — even being in a perpetual “time crunch” will cause similar brain/behavior issues as the “scarcity of poverty.” In fact, being in a state of money-stress/poverty will drop someone’s ability to perform on an IQ test by 14 points, which is MORE than happens when someone is sleep deprived!

In 2008, Mullainathan joined Eldar Shafir, Tod professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton, to write a book exploring these questions.

Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much (2013) presented years of findings from the fields of psychology and economics, as well as new empirical research of their own. Based on their analysis of the data, they sought to show that, just as food had possessed the minds of the starving volunteers in Minnesota, scarcity steals mental capacity wherever it occurs—from the hungry, to the lonely, to the time-strapped, to the poor.

That’s a phenomenon well-documented by psychologists: if the mind is focused on one thing, other abilities and skills—attention, self-control, and long-term planning—often suffer. Like a computer running multiple programs, Mullainathan and Shafir explain, our mental processors begin to slow down. We don’t lose any inherent capacities, just the ability to access the full complement ordinarily available for use.

But what’s most striking—and in some circles, controversial—about their work is not what they reveal about the effects of scarcity. It’s their assertion that scarcity affects anyone in its grip. Their argument: qualities often considered part of someone’s basic character—impulsive behavior, poor performance in school, poor financial decisions—may in fact be the products of a pervasive feeling of scarcity.

And when that feeling is constant, as it is for people mired in poverty, it captures and compromises the mind.

This is one of scarcity’s most insidious effects, they argue: creating mindsets that rarely consider long-term best interests.

“To put it bluntly,” says Mullainathan, “if I made you poor tomorrow, you’d probably start behaving in many of the same ways we associate with poor people.” And just like many poor people, he adds, you’d likely get stuck in the scarcity trap.

It is traditional to blame poverty on the poor, to think that we, ourselves, would never fall into the trap of poverty because we know better how to manage our lives, but that is a very safe little lie we tell -- no doubt it helps us sleep better at night. Far scarier to know the truth, that anyone, no matter how high, can fall into “poor ways” under the right circumstances.

It also means that, if poverty isn’t simply the “fault” of the poor, but in fact, is caused by the very state of scarcity itself and the environment surrounding it, then we must look to transforming the environment of available choices, making allowances for poverty behaviors during the “cure” of helping them create security, and assist them in calming down the brain’s scarcity response so that the pre-frontal cortex can start making the decisions, rather than the stressed-out fear part of the brain.

I think, as an aside, to your points on jealousy and motivation, a perception of scarcity is triggered and used to manipulate people politically (and through product marketing) all the time — both positively and negatively. “Vote for me! I’ll bring you jobs!” as well as “Vote for them, and they will let the poor undeserving losers of the world take YOUR jobs!! Be afraid!!!”

Source Link: Harvard Magazine - `The Science of Scarcity

The old notion of “poor people are poor because they repeat poor behaviors generationally and are unable or unwilling to do the hard work of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps” is, according to new data, in a word, wrong.

It is indeed a "fairytale" of epic and damaging proportions.

It is for this reason that I claim that allowing people to live perpetually in the cycle of poverty and the inevitable and concomitant behavior patterns, is a waste of human potential that could be better managed for the benefit of all humanity.

If poverty were an illness that anyone could have, and that was obtained through no natural fault of the sufferer, we would certainly treat it, and those who have it, differently, more compassionately, and more effectively than we do.

posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 06:03 PM

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Annee

And why should Asians who worked hard for their grades and test scores have those grades and scores count for less simply because they are Asian?

They shouldn't.

Some things are concrete.

But, suicide is very high in these students.

I'd say companies today want well rounded people. There's more and more push to have a compatible work force.

High incidents of suicide in Asians is not happening in the US. They are happy to live here in bigger homes and more abundant freedoms. I know a few non Asians too who are from Communist countries. These people are sooo glad they left Russia/China or Venezuela. They hardly let me finish the question as to do they like living here or there and usually say before I can ask that they 'love freedom'.
edit on 27-11-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 06:18 PM

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Lumenari

We need to get to the point where we don't care about this stuff and we can simply agree or disagree, with respect and love, and work together to move America forward.

I don't need to agree with a person to love them and work with them.

The alternative is identity politics where we focus on it and see how it divides us and break into our groups and fight each other.


Identity politics is a way to divide and be conquered.

posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 12:08 PM

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Annee

The problem is that too many people look at outcomes and based on that surface evidence alone declare that obviously if no one arrives at the same outcome, then they could not have been treated equally with no more evidence of that.

That, is of course, unfortunate.

I would consider myself a SJW. Because I've witnessed a lot in 72 years -- kindness/equal treatment work and I do not support the old ways of survival of the fittest in general UNTIL levels are reached where the divide becomes too great with lack of ability, education, natural talent, and just plain intelligence and ability.

So then you believe that someone just because of their race should get something for nothing over someone who worked their butt off? Should sports make it so that white people are more represented? No, teams should want the best regardless of race, just like an employer should hire the person best suited for the job, not the person that allows them to check the race box. Extreme social justice warriors are in my opinion, dense and unwilling to look at anything from the other perspective. I believe no one should be discriminated against because of race, political beliefs (assuming it's not something extreme...and I mean really extreme, who cares if your a dem, rep, ind, or libertarian), sexual orientation, etc, but by the same token no race or group should be handed something because of their race or group over someone else who is more qualified.

This holds true, no matter the numbers or ratio.

No one is entitled to anything.

posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 12:46 AM
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I belong to a group of Wildmanimals.
It is a difficult sociological challenge.
About 80 percent of the time.

Civility, respect , and common decency,
are states of mind worth the effort.

Particularly now as humanity descends
once again into barbarity.

Rosy Crosses to You.

posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 01:28 AM
a reply to: AboveBoard

Ahhh a social scientist who is deathly afraid of real science.

It's funny you think that article rebuts the idea that poor people have poor ways when really all it does is explain why they do. Also kind of funny you think it rebuts the idea of generational poverty as learned when it basically confirms it.

His study also doesn't rely on much actual data. The fact is, 40% of americans experience life in poverty at one point or another. Yet, the vast majority of them don't get stuck in his scarcity trap. Weird. Thesis' like these ignore the most basic human instincts in preference of some fancy explanation that moves blame from an individual to a societal structure. The fact is, if you're uncomfortable you change in attempts to become more comfortable. The fairy-tale idea that everyone wants to work hard and be successful is just that, a fairy tale. People, in general, want to work as little as possible for the most reward. If no work is required and an acceptable standard of living is achieved, few will work. The few that would, are the exception. But for your idea to work it requires the exception to be the rule.

This is why socialism has a 100% failure rate.
edit on 2-12-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 05:32 PM
a reply to: Dfairlite

Your statement “poor people have poor ways” ends with a shrug of resignation.

The article shows poor people can change if appropriate help is given - they are not lost causes doomed to remain poor forever, generation after generation, but rather people in need of real solutions that can be used to climb out of poverty and stay there.

I choose not to shrug them off.

Therein is the main difference.

PS: your assumptions regarding a “lazy population,” while part of the conventional wisdom, are not necessarily true or proven.


The GiveDirectly project, which started in October 2016, aims to give all 95 adults in a rural Kenyan village $22 dollars a month for the next 12 years. Many of the villagers were living on less than 75 cents a day, so in effect this is a proximation of a UBI. Early evidence from a phone survey hints that rather than taking the windfall and relaxing, many participants use the funds to invest in business equipment, education, or food for their families.

“I feel I need to work harder and engage in other income-generating activities to get more money,” said one 70-year-old recipient. GiveDirectly is just getting started, so its evidence is largely anecdotal, but a number of studies suggest that even one-time cash transfers can be effective in helping people escape poverty.

In truth, more data is needed to see if your pessimism and general lack of empathy is warranted.

While the positive effect of cash transfers on the poor is growing clearer with each study, others worry about the effects it could have on society if scaled up to everyone. "Stripped of its essential role as the way to earn a living, work would instead be an activity one engaged in by choice, for enjoyment, or to afford nicer things," argued The National Review.

But some experts point out that the super-rich tend to retire later than those in the middle class, even though they have the option of stopping work earlier. Others take their fortunes and engage in work they find personally meaningful, such as Bill and Melinda Gates’s fight against poverty and childhood illness, among other causes.

Nevertheless, everyone agrees that more data is needed.

edit on 13-12-2018 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2018 @ 11:25 PM
a reply to: AboveBoard

Your statement “poor people have poor ways” ends with a shrug of resignation.

No it doesn't. It explains why poor people are poor. Those 40% of americans who experience poverty at some point in their lives have poor ways during (and leading up to) that portion of their life.

The article shows poor people can change if appropriate help is given - they are not lost causes doomed to remain poor forever, generation after generation, but rather people in need of real solutions that can be used to climb out of poverty and stay there.

I never said they were, you are inferring what you want my motivations to be. I think helping the poor become successful is a worthy goal for individuals and private organizations, it's just not a government job and shouldn't ever be a function of the government.

RE: Give directly project
Yes, most people are lazy IF they achieve a standard of living they are happy with. Everyone has their own number. Very few don't have a number, those people tend to be the jeff bezos and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world. They are few and far between. The project referenced gives people 75 cents a day. Yes they are currently surviving on that, but that's all they're doing: surviving. That's not comfortable. It also highlights why socialism fails because when you give everyone x and certain people work harder to achieve y on top of x, then the people who only have x also want y but they don't want to work for y. So they vote themselves y. Eventually you run out of other people's money as margaret thatcher famously said.

In truth, more data is needed to see if your pessimism and general lack of empathy is warranted.

I don't lack empathy and I'm not really pessimistic. I really do feel bad for the generational poor. I'd like nothing more than to help them break that cycle. Have you ever watched the documentary "rich hill" if not, you should. It's all about a few generationally poor familes. It'll break your heart, infuriate, and inspire you, all at the same time. It's been a while since I watched it but I was struck at how you can tell which ones are most likely to break the cycle of poverty. That's why government programs fail on this. You can't help people who don't want to be helped. You have to use discernment and find the people who want to break the mold and give them the leg up to do so.

posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 12:29 AM
Nothing new. A group of humans get some popularity and a big head and use it to step on people they dont like. It doesnt matter the "side". Humans are disgusting animals with too much intelligence. They play games. Its funny to me when a group calls themselves progressive and then turns around and proves that they arent. Its never surprising. Hate will always be apart of the human animal, and any group that tries to convince you otherwise, is lying to you. But we already knew that didnt we? Whatever. Its never going to change. Dress it up as you see fit, its always see-through.

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in