Orath a corporation passing taxes gives them a write OFF, NOT A DEDUCTION. it isn't a dollar for dollar exchange. You are being dishonest.

Second, they aren't really paying taxes... They pass the expense to the consumer, and/or move jobs away, and/or reduce employee pay/benefits.

Live in reality, not in libtard philosophical theory works.

Try this... Go take a risk, START A COMPANY,... AND WHEN YOUR TAX BILL COMES IN AND RATS YOUR PROFITS.... What will YOU DO???

Will you start on business and take a loss? Or will you cut costs/increase prices/etc in order to make your business profitable?

Let's see if any liberal around here can answer that honestly...

Lieny - my apologies for my past abrasiveness towards you. I now love you; you are an awesome chap. ;)

"Orath a corporation passing taxes gives them a write OFF, NOT A DEDUCTION. it isn't a dollar for dollar exchange. You are being dishonest."

Give me the benefit of the doubt here, it is clearly ignorance of the details of US tax code, not intentional dishonesty.

Who cares if they get a tax write-off. It's part of their PR budget.

@ smeck: "I at no point said I was OK with discrimination against anybody."

Great. Now, what specific policies do you propose, that will actually end the damaging effects of discrimination against any particular group? I'll give you two to choose from:

1. Women
2. Non-white people in Europe or the USA / Canada.

What *specific* policies do you propose, to end the discrimination against those people?

Who cares if they get a tax write-off. It's part of their PR budget.

"Second, they aren't really paying taxes..."

There he goes again, continuing with the false statements. Slack-eyed ignoramus can't stop himself from looking like a lying loser. Use your words.

"They pass the expense to the consumer, and/or move jobs away, and/or reduce employee pay/benefits."

There he goes again, backing up his statement with evidence. Try reading, Jeff.

I see what his conclusions are bo. Don't give krellin a free pass at blanket statements. He acts like some big authority when all he's doing is lying big for his small mind.

Saying that a corporation shoves its tax costs elsewhere isn't a blanket statement nor is it even a false statement. It's well known that many large corporations not only do what krellin said, but they also stash money (particularly the individuals leading the company) overseas in order to avoid the IRS.

Bo, you really are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. *SLAP* Stop it.

I'm laser focused on one specific aspect of krellin's statement because he is flat out WRONG and needs to be called out for his crap.

Exactly. Don't "laser focus" on one aspect of his statement. He made an argument. Either rebut it or don't.

Bo - don't waste your time with little Jeffy. He is confronted with a demonstrable TRUTH about corporations that he doesn't like...so like any petulant child, he's stomps his feet and cries, and demands that everyone acknowledge that water isn't wet, because he doesn't want it to be.

That's why I take such pleasure in mocking simple minded libtards such as he....because I can almost see his frothing, cry-baby temper tantrum as he spins and guffaws...and never actually tries to refute anything said.

Poor wittle Jeffy-poo...

Jeff is about as liberal as I am fascist, but that's okay.

@Orathaic

"Maybe that works for individuals, but corporations - with only one motivation, profits for shareholders - will often ignore charitable causes. Especially the biggest corporations (not the majority of small an medium enterprises who actually have a foothold in their local community and can see the reality on the ground of what people need, BUT the majority of the wealth, which is held by the largest few corporations)

"How do you feel about abolishing income tax, while increasing taxation of corporate profits?"

That's not really a bad idea. Another idea to make corporations better would be to encourage some form of corporate democracy, where the workers and perhaps customers have a say in how the business is ran, in addition to the investors. Of course I wouldn't want to see that enforced, but if more businesses voluntarily made that decision, I think things would work better.

I agree with many of you that big corporations are often somewhat destructive in some ways, but I'd kind of rather they be the ones with too much power than the government, because big business can't imprison me, draft me, or execute me. And businesses do and often can provide good, in the form of jobs and, well, goods. If it wasn't for Microsoft, Google, and HP, I would not be typing this message.

@Krellin

Thanks! I still think you're a bit abrasive, but that's not a crime. And perhaps you've also learned a lesson about immediately presuming people's political ideology based on one issue! (Although I suppose most people do that.)

krellin, if you would offer a course in insults, i'd sign up the next minute. You crack me the fuck up. I love reading these threads.

Also, the first page of this thread was messed up. Looking down on someone because they didn't know the term ableism? What a scandal !! Really? How big of a douchebag do you need to be?

TRUTH? Hahahahaha.

The point is that krellin has to start off from a point of fallacy when even attempting to make an argument. He still can't admit he is WRONG.

You don't even see what you look like by defending krellin, bo. He's laughing even harder at you than me.

@krellin

- "Try this... Go take a risk, START A COMPANY,... AND WHEN YOUR TAX BILL COMES IN AND RATS YOUR PROFITS.... What will YOU DO???

- "Will you start on business and take a loss? Or will you cut costs/increase prices/etc in order to make your business profitable?"

Exactly, that's what a lot of people on the left don't understand, or perhaps ignore. But I think that's more applicable for small businesses, right?

I think it would be just as naive to say that big businesses always make the decisions that are best for society as a whole, rather than acting selfishly to meet their own objectives. I still don't think that it merits government intervention, but it at least merits a cause for concern.

"He still can't admit he is WRONG." I suppose half of the reasoning behind that is because he isn't wrong.

"I still don't think that it merits government intervention..."

Thousands of years of civilization says differently.

You all keep defending krellin so that he doesn't have to state that his fact is incorrect. That's exactly what he wants and you all keep providing him cover. Nice job.

"Thousands of years of civilization says differently."

Status quo is a terrible defense for a position. Slavery was legal, and in some places still is, for thousands of years. Not to mention racism and intense misogyny. The only weaker defense than status quo is invoking, positively or negatively, the name of Hitler.

Jeff, shut the fuck up. I never defended krellin. He's a douchebag that deserves every piece of shit anyone on this site has ever thrown this way, and he knows that. I am attacking you for a) not reading, and b) claiming that ambiguity within a premise is reason to discount an entire argument even when that ambiguity disappears in context. Go jack off or something and get rid of all the tension you have right now and stop being so fucking dumb.

#shotsfired

Three people (that I've seen so far anyway) have responded to my last post and merit a response. I'll respond in three posts for convenience. I'll be necessarily briefer than I'd like (I have company this weekend, and have little time beyond the need for sleep).

@orathaic,

"Are you in favour of positive discrimination for disabled people, such as parking spaces close to shop entrances?"

That's a great question. In general, I'm skeptical of positive discrimination, because I think it comes with a lot of bad side effects. But I think you've pointed out correctly that this is a special case. Disabled people, by the very definition of the group, face physical and not (just) social challenges (and I don't use the word "just" in a minimizing way, just a technical, listing way. Social challenges can of course be severe, or even debilitating, for anybody). Thus, yes, I do support positive discrimination in this case. I don't support every one conceivable. There is a balancing test that should be done in each case, of the rights (especially), efficiency, and prosperity of the populace as a whole on the one hand, and the benefit gained by the disabled on the other. Parking lots are a pretty easy case, at least in circumstances where there are multiple parking spaces to choose from (say).

I say especially rights, and as a libertarian, the list is short of the things that I would actually require along these lines. But there's a difference between requirement and encouragement. I'm very glad that there is more accomodation available for a host of disabilities. When it's in my power, as occasionally it is, I do try to extend them (personally).

Good question.

"No, but we use language to communicate, and clarity, brevity and specificity are all useful in that regard. It is easier to communicate ideas which we have words for. "

Clarity is important, yes. My point is that many of these new words are introduced for the opposite of clarity: equivocation destroys clarity, it doesn't introduce it. There isn't a single definition of this word that will achieve all the things its promoters need it to achieve, and that's quite dangerous for a word that is used as if it were technical.

The truth is, we already have words for these ideas. I've highlighted this multiple times now. There is no need for new ones, and new ones bring a host of problems with them. In addition to the main one that I've highlighted -- which groups' sufferings are important enough to merit new words? Who decides? Is cruelty to somebody because their family is rich less culpable than cruelty to somebody because their family is poor?

"All of a sudden a discussion occurs around the idea of ableism, a discussion including the voices of disabled people who actually experience ableism in their daily lives, and we get to listen to their recommendations. Or decide we know better for them what is right for their lives and assume our opinions are superior."

Sorry, but this is BS, and on several different levels.

From the time I was a very young child (when ableism had never been heard of), I was made to understand that it is easy, if one is thoughtless, to make hurtful assumptions or say hurtful things to disabled people, and that one should act empathetically and try to make decisions that would ameliorate and not aggravate their difficulties. This was known even very long before my time. It is just part of the arrogance of young progressives to think that they are the first people ever to think a kind thought, that the past can be completely ignored, that only with their linguistic innovations can we at last start to think about how to make life better for others, and that they are but years away from solving these hard problems -- if only the recently-labeled ablelist villains could be marginalized or made to shut up.

Second, the word does not actually bring clarity to these conversations. And incidentally, it is rather patronizing for you to say, "Or decide we know better for them what is right for their lives and assume our opinions are superior." Sometimes I disagree with a disabled person about his conclusions regarding actions that should be taken to help his condition. That is neither because I have decided I know (as a general matter) what's better for him, nor because I am "assum[ing]" my opinions are superior. It is because, having listened to and analyzed his reasoning (and listened to and accepted his experiences), I disagree with it; just like when I disagree with a non-disabled person.

"'And it's just incredible. This thread is really amazing. In it, progressives are nakedly attacking other forum members as discriminatory *just for refusing to use the words they demand.*'

"No, not knowing the words, which means not being part of/listening to the conversations which use them."

Yes, and as I pointed out, the conversations that use them are largely aimed at and within a very specific social context. Judging people for not knowing words from your particular intellectual circle is a priggish and blameworthy thing to do. In this case, it also bespeaks the overweening arrogance that your own group is the only one that actually cares about these problems.

There has actually been, and still is, plenty written about how to help the disabled, both in the large scale and in the small scale of interactions, that does not use the word "ablist." There is no excuse for being a pill to those who haven't heard the word.

"That is, you may think its great to treat people well, but you ignorantly refuse to engage in the conversation around what well means to them. Discrimination via ignoring their specific needs. "

Once again, this is just breathtaking presumption that only your little circle cares at all.

"That doesn't make you wrong, but your refusal to use these words indicate a lack of care for these topics, and a lack of empathy for the suffering of others. Which is why you are being attacked. "

No, it doesn't, at all. It indicates a real concern about both the unintentional and the intentional bad effects of those words, which I have gone to some effort to explain. You insisting on labelling somebody indifferent to suffering because they dislike a choice of words is really galling, though, and does indicate quite a lot.

"Words have power, and you are not limited by intellectual capacity, education, or wealth, from using them. Your refusal speak to the content of your character. "

Oh good grief.

I have explained why I won't use the words. It is clear that it has nothing to do with opposing, in any way, helping the disabled.Your continuing to deceive about why I do it says a lot about the content of YOUR character.

"I don't condemn you for your use of language, or your avoidance of categorisation. I question you because you appear indifferent to the suffering of other - where you can't see it. "

Actually, you just did.

In any event, you have great faith in your new words -- that they will open my eyes to suffering I have not before seen. As I said earlier, I actually read quite a few articles by those outlining such arguments. I have yet to find in these words the power you describe, but I've seen plenty of ill in them.

@Thucydides,

"Take semck's earlier comment with the word "racism" instead of "ableism" is and you will see the absurdity of his viewpoint taken to its logical conclusion. If you aren't a progressive, what does that make you?"

Actually, progressives misuse the word racism in exactly the same way. I kind of think that their discovery of how they could do that was what gave people the idea of creating all the other words in the first place.

Racism, of course, is a word that existed and referred to a real evil for a long time before it began being manipulated and subjected to mass equivocation. For the latter, see e.g. the article above (although not all the uses).

"This relates to the second reason these words exist, consciousness-raising. Or equivocating as you call it."

Huh? Do you even know what equivocating means? Do you understand my point at all?

"Orathaic is right - the world is such that for many people, relying on the privileged class to see their instances of discrimination and suffering and act responsibly to prevent it is not enough - precisely because privilege functions as a systematic process that prevents such people from even noticing."

This is undoubtedly true. None of which justifies the default position of progressives on this thread that those who won't use their words are de facto oppressors. The conversation is not owned by any one party, and it is ideas, not shibboleths, that should be discussed.

As you say, voices beyond those already in power are vital to a democracy (and always have been). This observation is quite far from an argument that particular words do more good than harm. Given the broad ways in which I see them being used to turn away from argument and toward unfounded moral mudslinging, my opinion remains what it was.

(We already have a good word for discrimination: discrimination. It has the excellent benefit that its usage is relatively well-established and we can actually evaluate arguments using it. Definitions of your preferred words shift like sand, for reasons I outlined earlier).

"You say these words are used as bludgeons for those who disagree with proposed economic (systematic) reforms to deal with this discrimination. Yet meanwhile you offer no alternative other than to continue as before and try to be nice."

This is a red herring. The topic of conversation is the words themselves, and the outrage of people being attacked for not using them. Beyond this, I'll defer to my response to Jamie.

@Jamiet,

"[...]I'll give you two to choose from:

1. Women
2. Non-white people in Europe or the USA / Canada.

"What *specific* policies do you propose, to end the discrimination against those people?"

What an easy world you think you live in, where descrimination can be ended by a policy, or ignorance and hate by the stroke of a pen. That's part of your whole error -- thinking that a government policy is sufficient, and thus is what we should be looking for.

No such thing is true. Nevertheless I appreciate the question and its attempt to take what I've said at face value and give me an opportunity to engage. So I'm going to answer a slightly modified question. Since I don't think a policy can *end* descrimination, I am going to discuss what policies I think should be pursued by those who want to *help,* along with nonpolitical goals that would have to go alongside. Because I don't have enough time, I'm also going to cheat and further narrow your category to black people in America. I realize that's a substantial narrowing, but I frankly don't think there's a single homogeneous "non-white people" set of problems (though that might seem closer to true in the UK? I don't know).

Anyway.

First, as I indicated obliquely in a much earlier post, I actually agree with the OP on one point: the drug war has been a disaster. White college students very frequently use pot (for example), and worry almost not at all about getting caught. If they are caught, it's rather often treated as all a bit of a joke, Junior going through his rebel phase, and maybe the parents receive a stern phone call. Meanwhile, young black drug users undergo what can hardly be called other than persecution, and face having their already difficult lives ruined if they are caught with even small amounts of marjiuana. Whether or not this is a reflection of constant racism, it is a scandal and must be ended immediately.

The article was similarly onto something with its talk about ticky-tack discretionary tickets that are actually only ticky-tack for the rich people who could afford them (and never get them). Something has to be done about this -- possibly a lot of crimes should be wiped off the books. For a lot more of the trivial misdemeanor category, penalties should possibly be tied to income. (This is not technically about a black problem per se, but of course it is silly to ignore the correlation between race and poverty in addressing these questions).

We obviously face a great deal of mistrust between police and the black community right now. There is fault on both sides (as there typically is in history among groups that mistrust each other). That doesn't matter, as only one of the sides is at the beck and call of us, the populace. We are going to have to ask our police officers to turn the other cheek and do what is necessary to gain trust. This will be a long and hard road. The "what" here is deliberately vague, because I don't think we've finished the conversation on what that is. It certainly does not extend to having to let somebody shoot you, obviously; but if a killing is made in self defense (and it sometimes is), there should be incredible transparency in handling that, and it should be an absolute last resort. Perhaps body cameras can be part of an answer. A suspension of ticky-tack tickets (see above) might also help.

Unfortunately (especially in light of the above) another problem is the runaway crime in the inner city that is tolerated, which is another scandal. I'm not talking about parking violations or marijuana use, but I'm talking about murder of blacks by blacks, children being afraid to go to school. Perhaps ending the drug war would ease this a little -- who can say? In any event, it must not be tolerated. It's unclear if anything can be done about this while the above mistrust persists, and that makes addressing that problem especially urgent. If and when that trust can be augmented, this problem still will not be addressable without active help from community leaders. Often that will mean pastors; sometimes community organizers; sometimes politicians.

Non-politically, that problem can perhaps be eased to a degree by encouraging reinvestment by industry in largely black areas. Rising employment and property values can help push blight and the sense of hopelessness back from an area. As a libertarian, I'm ambivalent about the government offering incentives to corporations in the first place; but since they do it constantly anyway, we can defer that question and say taht, while they're doing it, they should consider doing it in a way that will encourage urban renewal. (This is a slow process, anyway, though, and of course no company is going to build anything in a truly dangerous neighborhood).

I could go on, but it's time to go to bed, so I'll end with education. This is a really, really important and really, really difficult problem. I would encourage providing school vouchers and greater parental choice. Additionally, it must be said that there is great disagreement about how to fix the urban public schools. Much of it seems to be doctrinaire, more of it self-interested, much of it genuine disagreement. What's clear is that what we're doing right now is not working well. Tragic to say, we have enough different failing models that we could try a bunch of different things all at once. We should listen to all ideas, aggressively try different things, and give them time to succeed. Of course, a line will have to be walked between giving them the resources to succeed, and not pretending that throwing money at the problem will solve anything. (On the one hand, the schools are probably underfunded; on the other hand, suburban underfunded schools outperform urban underfunded schools, and so the problems go well beyond just funding).

Without providing truly excellent education, nothing will fix this problem. We can give money to the poor to salve their suffering, but we will not be enabling them to quit being poor and no longer need our salve.

Much more should be said about this, and so I should apologize that I am going to leave and go to bed -- much driving tomorrow. There's much to take issue with in what I've already said, undoubtedly. Part of that will be because we disagree, and part may be because I've said things clumsily and in a hurry.

Thanks smeck, for your thoughtful responce. It is good to get a better understanding of your position.

"I have explained why I won't use the words. It is clear that it has nothing to do with opposing, in any way, helping the disabled."

I would claim it was not clear, but you have gone to great lenghts to clarify this. So i appreciate that.

'
"I don't condemn you for your use of language, or your avoidance of categorisation. I question you because you appear indifferent to the suffering of other - where you can't see it. "

Actually, you just did.'

Maybe i should have said, 'i don't condemn you *merely* for your use of language...' And then gone on to explain the inferences i was making about you based on that use.

And...

"In any event, you have great faith in your new words -- that they will open my eyes to suffering I have not before seen. As I said earlier, I actually read quite a few articles by those outlining such arguments. I have yet to find in these words the power you describe, but I've seen plenty of ill in them."

Yes, i have great faith in humanity and that through conversation and empathy we can improve the world; i'm not against framing the conversation using newly minted words appropirate to the situation. That you don't have this is an indication of a difference of experience, and perhaps not the content of our characters. I will need to think about your points some more, again thank you.

@Smeck, again, i would agree with you on education, and on not knowing the precise remedy, but I will respond to one other point you made.

"Unfortunately (especially in light of the above) another problem is the runaway crime in the inner city that is tolerated, which is another scandal. I'm not talking about parking violations or marijuana use, but I'm talking about murder of blacks by blacks, children being afraid to go to school. Perhaps ending the drug war would ease this a little -- who can say?"

I see this problem in a very different light. I have heard a convincing arguement that violent crime among male teens is 'natural' - to be more specific, teens will certainly compete with their peers, and when the only outlet for that competition is violence they will engage in violence (while females will engage in sexual activity, competing woth each other for the attention of their male peers) - the case that this is 'natural' is merely that evolution encourages more sexual behaviour at a younger age when they is more violence ( thus a lower life expectancy ) That this was a perfectly normal way to live in before the development of our current social structures ( i hesitate to call it uncivilised, because that tends to be a value judgement )

Regardless, the solution appears to be giving these teens alternative means of competition - and your point about education is of course one route for that. Though disenfranchisement with education is a big part of the problem - why would you bother competing if you *just know* you can't win. If nobody you've ever met or spoken to, has gotten a good job or better life via education.

Education specific to their needs seems sensible, putting them into a competition that they care about and one which they feel the can win. Even if it does not have the same goals/aspiration as the middle class ( one of the reasons for disenfranchisement is middle class expectations for lower class people, and while i support high expectations, that is the expectation that you CAN achieve great results, they must also be realistic, an that result must be something the student actually gives a shit about )

You seen teens competing for athletic and academic scholarships, for educational attainment and greater income, and you see teens competing for attention on social media, via physical dominance via violence, and for sexual attention... You definitely see them competing. The question remains, how do we redirect that competition to some common good.
---
And i note i haven't mentioned law enforcement, because i don't think law enforcement has an important role to play. Or at least the current law enforcement mechanisms. Perhaps we should expect policing from within these class groups rather from without; on this issue alone do i think government intervention is the wrong answer.