Defining Social Justice Warrior

[Hurlshort]

So what about the Koch brothers?  Their wealth grew by $33 million in the last 3 years, but more than half of their employees rely on welfare to get by.  How is that raising all ships?

[Fenixp]

Social Justice Warrior (definition): Person or a group which disagrees with your political or personal opinions

Use:

"I really like this big blue ball."

"You bull**** spewing *** *** **** ****** SJW ****!"

[kgambit]

 

 

A quick google search in his area according to his location on his profile comes up with these:

 

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Gilroy_CA/pg-1

http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Gilroy,CA/36.8534993825,37.2015930148,-122.032600647,-121.463371521_xy/11_zm/

 

Now I don't know what real estate websites Americans use, but these homes are not in the millions.

 

 

 

Those are fairly common sites, but your search criteria are pretty generic.  Hurlshot can correct me if I don't get this right, but he has two kids so you probably need to redo the search criteria for 4bd+ and since his wife works add a two car garage.  That drives the minimum price to ~600,000$ just at asking and depending on demand houses frequently go for more than asking price.   Plus factor in real estate taxes and mortgage insurance and maybe figuring out how much Hurl is setting aside for his kids college and his own retirement.  So it's not such a cut and dried situation. 

 

Or you could have searched in Cupertino.  LOL 

 

Jesus Hurl those prices are freaking insane!

Edited May 16, 2016 by kgambit

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So what about the Koch brothers?  Their wealth grew by $33 million in the last 3 years, but more than half of their employees rely on welfare to get by.  How is that raising all ships?

Because adages don't describe the reality of global capitalism.

[Meshugger]

I work in Cupertino.  It is also important to keep in mind that the houses that are selling for under a million are the easiest for investors to gobble up, because they can go in with a cash offer.  

 

I used to live in Gilroy, but the commute was killing me.  

 

http://www.trulia.com/CA/Cupertino/

 

Honestly this isn't like some breaking news story.  The Bay Area is insane.

 

http://fortune.com/2016/03/07/san-francisco-housing-prices/ 

 

You work in Silicon Valley? Oh dear, then i understand.

[BruceVC]

So what about the Koch brothers?  Their wealth grew by $33 million in the last 3 years, but more than half of their employees rely on welfare to get by.  How is that raising all ships?

Okay that type of complete inconsistency and utter lack of fairness for staff is one  of the problems around some of the extremely wealthy in the USA.....and it needs to be resolved

 

That would never be socially allowed in SA....the basic argument being " where is the humanity, how can people be so unconcerned with the financial reality of the people who actually work in the company " 

 

But also remember its the US billionaires who  give more money to altruistic causes than any other  country..so there is real charity

 

But yes that Koch story is really disappointing, I thought that type of reality was old school Capitalism from the 1980's 

 

Finally people love to attack the West and the USA and say things like " Capitalism is just about greed and the abuse of the poor or needy...its just about rich people getting richer "

 

 

Yet there are many non-Capitalist countries like in the ME, Russia or China where the billionaires in those countries care even less than your Western billionaire

 

Thats another thing I cringe about with Trump....he keeps feeling the need to say " how rich he is and how successful he is " 

[BruceVC]

Social Justice Warrior (definition): Person or a group which disagrees with your political or personal opinions

Use:

"I really like this big blue ball."

"You bull**** spewing *** *** **** ****** SJW ****!"

Well thats  a bit unfair...you are allowed to like a blue ball but you just need to explain why or you being entitled 

[Gfted1]

If they are only profiting to the tune of 11 million a year, the Koch Brothers have bigger problems. I assume that's supposed to be Billion?

[Hurlshort]

If they are only profiting to the tune of 11 million a year, the Koch Brothers have bigger problems. I assume that's supposed to be Billion?

Hah, yeah, my bad.

[213374U]

It's not about giving money to the rich. It about letting people keep more of the money they earn. Because they spend it, invest it, donate it, etc. Economic activity breeds economic activity. That is how an economy grows. And as economies grow more people get to participate and they pay taxes too. So by reducing taxes and expanding the economy government revenue actually increases because more people are earning more money and many are paying taxes who were not before. If you increase the taxes then those who spend and invest do less of both. The economy shrinks and there are fewer employment opportunities and more people need assistance and the government is forced to raise taxes again and that means fewer jobs and companies going overseas... you see the idea here?

 

It's not hard to grasp.

 

 

No, it's not hard to grasp, but that's only because that's not how it works in reality. What you are describing is, I don't know, 18th century capitalism theory? In this day and age, "the rich" do not significantly spend, participate in, or stimulate the economy. Instead, what they do is keep inflating the already completely absurdly sized financial derivatives bubble, whose notional value is currently estimated at >$1.2 quadrillion. The actual world economy you're thinking about is just around $77 trillion. Think the tulip craze of 17th century Netherlands, that has grown to about 20 times the size of the global economy. The solution to that ain't gonna be pleasant, to put it mildly.

 

Please, tell me exactly how encouraging these **** to keep breaking banks whose bailouts everyone else have to pay for is growing anything but their own greed, let alone the economy.

 

But beyond that, there's this magical notion that "the rich" have amassed fabulous amounts of wealth without being at all connected to the rest of mankind, that they don't owe anything to anybody, and that they have no responsibility to maintain the very structures and conditions of stability that allowed them to make and keep money to begin with. The only way to ensure (rather than just trust in the kindness of their hearts and hope for the best) that some of their good fortune reverts back to everyone is through taxes, though I'm open to other ideas if you have any. The "self-made man" myth is right up there with the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and Santa, and they'd all be laughing their asses off, hadn't they just found that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is now subject to negative interest rates.

Edited May 16, 2016 by 213374U

[Amentep]

So what about the Koch brothers?  Their wealth grew by $33 million in the last 3 years, but more than half of their employees rely on welfare to get by.  How is that raising all ships?

 

Is there a source on this?  I'd like to read it.

[Guard Dog]

 

It's not about giving money to the rich. It about letting people keep more of the money they earn. Because they spend it, invest it, donate it, etc. Economic activity breeds economic activity. That is how an economy grows. And as economies grow more people get to participate and they pay taxes too. So by reducing taxes and expanding the economy government revenue actually increases because more people are earning more money and many are paying taxes who were not before. If you increase the taxes then those who spend and invest do less of both. The economy shrinks and there are fewer employment opportunities and more people need assistance and the government is forced to raise taxes again and that means fewer jobs and companies going overseas... you see the idea here?

 

It's not hard to grasp.

 

 

No, it's not hard to grasp, but that's only because that's not how it works in reality. What you are describing is, I don't know, 18th century capitalism theory? In this day and age, "the rich" do not significantly spend, participate in, or stimulate the economy. Instead, what they do is keep inflating the already completely absurdly sized financial derivatives bubble, whose notional value is currently estimated at >$1.2 quadrillion. The actual world economy you're thinking about is just around $77 trillion. Think the tulip craze of 17th century Netherlands, that has grown to about 20 times the size of the global economy. The solution to that ain't gonna be pleasant, to put it mildly.

 

Please, tell me exactly how encouraging these **** to keep breaking banks whose bailouts everyone else have to pay for is growing anything but their own greed, let alone the economy.

 

But beyond that, there's this magical notion that "the rich" have amassed fabulous amounts of wealth without being at all connected to the rest of mankind, that they don't owe anything to anybody, and that they have no responsibility to maintain the very structures and conditions of stability that allowed them to make and keep money to begin with. The only way to ensure (rather than just trust in the kindness of their hearts and hope for the best) that some of their good fortune reverts back to everyone is through taxes, though I'm open to other ideas if you have any. The "self-made man" myth is right up there with the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and Santa, and they'd all be laughing their asses off, hadn't they just found that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is now subject to negative interest rates.

 

This deserves a longer response than i have time to give right now. I'm at work.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

"You bull**** spewing *** *** **** ****** SJW ****!"

 

you forgot nazi

[Hurlshort]

 

So what about the Koch brothers?  Their wealth grew by $33 million in the last 3 years, but more than half of their employees rely on welfare to get by.  How is that raising all ships?

 

Is there a source on this?  I'd like to read it.

 

 

You know, I am clearly getting my stories about billionaires and welfare mixed up.  I was originally reading about Walmart employees and then I ended up on the Koch Brothers (who I'm not even clear on who they employ.)  Here is the Walmart stuff.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#253f13957cd8

 

Counterpoint:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/04/14/phantastical-nonsense-about-walmart-the-waltons-and-7-8-billion-in-tax-breaks/#199b69a45687

[BruceVC]

 

It's not about giving money to the rich. It about letting people keep more of the money they earn. Because they spend it, invest it, donate it, etc. Economic activity breeds economic activity. That is how an economy grows. And as economies grow more people get to participate and they pay taxes too. So by reducing taxes and expanding the economy government revenue actually increases because more people are earning more money and many are paying taxes who were not before. If you increase the taxes then those who spend and invest do less of both. The economy shrinks and there are fewer employment opportunities and more people need assistance and the government is forced to raise taxes again and that means fewer jobs and companies going overseas... you see the idea here?

 

It's not hard to grasp.

 

 

No, it's not hard to grasp, but that's only because that's not how it works in reality. What you are describing is, I don't know, 18th century capitalism theory? In this day and age, "the rich" do not significantly spend, participate in, or stimulate the economy. Instead, what they do is keep inflating the already completely absurdly sized financial derivatives bubble, whose notional value is currently estimated at >$1.2 quadrillion. The actual world economy you're thinking about is just around $77 trillion. Think the tulip craze of 17th century Netherlands, that has grown to about 20 times the size of the global economy. The solution to that ain't gonna be pleasant, to put it mildly.

 

Please, tell me exactly how encouraging these **** to keep breaking banks whose bailouts everyone else have to pay for is growing anything but their own greed, let alone the economy.

 

But beyond that, there's this magical notion that "the rich" have amassed fabulous amounts of wealth without being at all connected to the rest of mankind, that they don't owe anything to anybody, and that they have no responsibility to maintain the very structures and conditions of stability that allowed them to make and keep money to begin with. The only way to ensure (rather than just trust in the kindness of their hearts and hope for the best) that some of their good fortune reverts back to everyone is through taxes, though I'm open to other ideas if you have any. The "self-made man" myth is right up there with the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and Santa, and they'd all be laughing their asses off, hadn't they just found that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is now subject to negative interest rates.

 

2133 I know you ignore what I say because I'm a trollllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

But I hope you read this, I doubt anyone else would mention this to you and I'm sorry to be seen to be attacking you but you need to hear the reality of your country and the EU

 

http://cepr.net/documents/Spain-2015-12.pdf

 

You really need to stop blaming the system for being flawed ...its not the system. Its the historic structural issues that have always existed within the overall Spainish work ethos that is to blame ...it always has been there

 

Have you not asked yourself how come its only the PIG countries  (Ireland is done with austerity ) that are undergoing austerity?

 

If the EU troika was so corrupt and dysfunctional how come no other country in the EU needed assistance or is undergoing austerity? What about some of the East European countries ....despite having weaker economies and facing levels of bias they are not even facing austerity

 

So please dont try to suggest the EU Troika is targeting the PIG countries out of ....I wouldn't even know how to justify it 

 

You have to understand it starts getting embarrassing to keep seeing these anti-austerity protests in first world countries like Spain ....and you part of the EU !!!

 

Much of the third world is going through serious economic stress but I mean real pressure....25 % unemployment, massive deficits , negative growth, governments that blame the West and the terrible reality of many citizens who for generations have known nothing but grinding poverty....they really have serious problems. And they dont seem to complain as much as you guys 

 

Its not your fault, its your governments but surly you can see these changes are necessary?

 

Soory again if I seem to be rude but I do get annoyed by these austerity complaints ....what is being asked of your country is nothing every other country in the world does 

[majestic]

 

The only way to ensure (rather than just trust in the kindness of their hearts and hope for the best) that some of their good fortune reverts back to everyone is through taxes, though I'm open to other ideas if you have any.

 

Proscription worked for the Roman Empire and we've already established that the Roman Empire was kind of the pinnacle of "western" civilisation, so what worked for them should work for us as well.

[Hurlshort]

 

But beyond that, there's this magical notion that "the rich" have amassed fabulous amounts of wealth without being at all connected to the rest of mankind, that they don't owe anything to anybody, and that they have no responsibility to maintain the very structures and conditions of stability that allowed them to make and keep money to begin with. The only way to ensure (rather than just trust in the kindness of their hearts and hope for the best) that some of their good fortune reverts back to everyone is through taxes, though I'm open to other ideas if you have any. The "self-made man" myth is right up there with the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and Santa, and they'd all be laughing their asses off, hadn't they just found that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is now subject to negative interest rates.

 

 

You had me until the self-made man part.  I do believe it is possible to rise up from the bottom in our society, probably more so now than most of human history.  Hard work and dedication can get you far today.  But there is a point where you have to ask at what cost?

 

I have a buddy I grew up with that has managed to build a business and find a good deal of financial success.  He has a big house, fancy cars, etc.  I worked with him for a short while after college.  He worked tirelessly building his business.  I admire him, but I wouldn't change places.  He is also on his second marriage and had his first kid a decade after mine.  The point is, you can build yourself up, but not everyone should have to.  The country needs regular workers as well, and their salaries should be able to keep pace with the cost of living.    

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

But beyond that, there's this magical notion that "the rich" have amassed fabulous amounts of wealth without being at all connected to the rest of mankind, that they don't owe anything to anybody, and that they have no responsibility to maintain the very structures and conditions of stability that allowed them to make and keep money to begin with. The only way to ensure (rather than just trust in the kindness of their hearts and hope for the best) that some of their good fortune reverts back to everyone is through taxes, though I'm open to other ideas if you have any. The "self-made man" myth is right up there with the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and Santa, and they'd all be laughing their asses off, hadn't they just found that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is now subject to negative interest rates.

 

 

You had me until the self-made man part.  I do believe it is possible to rise up from the bottom in our society, probably more so now than most of human history.  Hard work and dedication can get you far today.  But there is a point where you have to ask at what cost?  

 

 

 

A better question should be "what is the likelihood of doing so?". Sure, self-made men (in your definition of the term, at least) exist, much like lottery winners do, because as it turns out, if you throw enough people willing to give it a try at an opportunity, a few of them are bound to succeed sooner or later. Touting the individual skill and sacrifices they made as the deciding factor in their success, however, is misleading: there are many people similar to them who worked just as hard, and sacrificed just as much, with little result.

 

Of course, all of this is kind of missing the entire point of 1337's post: that the social context in which these "self-made" men exist is not irrelevant, and pretending that their success has nothing to do with the fact that, as you pointed out, achieving such results is now probably more likely than ever in human history, is delusional.

[Hurlshort]

 

Of course, all of this is kind of missing the entire point of 1337's post: that the social context in which these "self-made" men exist is not irrelevant, and pretending that their success has nothing to do with the fact that, as you pointed out, achieving such results is now probably more likely than ever in human history, is delusional.

 

 

I'm wrestling with this sentence a bit.  Can you clarify?

[Volourn]

It's the big bang theory. Something happens because it happens even though nothing existed.

 

'Self made men' 9and women) aren't made in the vaccum. Those who fail fail because they weren't good enough. PERIOD. Unless you are a sexist racist who doesn't think oprah Winfrey didn't earn    her success. Are you a sexist racist?

Edited May 16, 2016 by Volourn

[Gfted1]

Maybe hes trying to equate effort with success? Some people/ideas just suck.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Of course, all of this is kind of missing the entire point of 1337's post: that the social context in which these "self-made" men exist is not irrelevant, and pretending that their success has nothing to do with the fact that, as you pointed out, achieving such results is now probably more likely than ever in human history, is delusional.

 

 

I'm wrestling with this sentence a bit.  Can you clarify?

 

 

 

One's achievements can't be decoupled from the environment those achievements took place in. To succeed, you need opportunities to do so. To even believe that success is achievable or even desirable, you need a cultural environment that encourages this attitude. And to preserve the results of your success, you need some semblance of stability and social order. "Self-made men" don't exist in a vacuum.

[Hurlshort]

So, are we debating the literal translation of a "self-made man"?  I kind of assumed it was a given that it is a figure of speech.  My bad.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

So, are we debating the literal translation of a "self-made man"? 

 

I think that's a bit uncharitable. 1337's entire point was that "tax-funded welfare = the government takes your RIGHTFULLY EARNED money away to give it to the undeserving" (presumably while twirling their mustaches and cackling about the voter base they get to expand by making their livelihood depend entirely on said government) is a very childish viewpoint.

[Malcador]

So, are we debating the literal translation of a "self-made man"? I kind of assumed it was a given that it is a figure of speech. My bad.

Shocking, isn't it

 

It is amusing when people claim they are a literal example, mind you.