ILovePhilosophy.com

So, Otto,you're poor and educated. And white. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are white and educated yet poor? I talk to poor white people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem. What is your story?

Faust wrote:So, Otto,you're poor and educated. And white. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are white and educated yet poor? I talk to poor white people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.

That's anti-White racism.

Replace the word "white" with the word "black", and you'll get this:

Kunta Kinte,you're poor and educated. And black. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are black and educated yet poor? I talk to poor black people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.

So, Alf. You're not too strong on logic. Can you explain why you post on a philosophy website yet seem to know no logic? I talk to people who aren't too strong on logic. Mostly, they're good people. They're just not too strong on logic.

By the way, I rarely talk to poor black people. Mostly because there aren't too many black people, rich or poor, where I live. Most of them (poor black people that I talk to) have a drug problem. That's just my experience.

Reporting my particular experience, without generalizing to all poor white people, or to all poor black people, is not racism. It's just reporting on my particular experience.

Alf wrote:

Faust wrote:So, Otto,you're poor and educated. And white. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are white and educated yet poor? I talk to poor white people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.

That's anti-White racism.

Replace the word "white" with the word "black", and you'll get this:

Kunta Kinte,you're poor and educated. And black. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are black and educated yet poor? I talk to poor black people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.

Faust wrote:So, Alf. You're not too strong on logic. Can you explain why you post on a philosophy website yet seem to know no logic?

I talk to people who aren't too strong on logic. Mostly, they're good people. They're just not too strong on logic.

By the way, I rarely talk to poor black people. Mostly because there aren't too many black people, rich or poor, where I live. Most of them (poor black people that I talk to) have a drug problem. That's just my experience.

Reporting my particular experience, without generalizing to all poor white people, or to all poor black people, is not racism. It's just reporting on my particular experience.

No. Obviously, you are the one who is not too strong on logic.

It's a fact that talking about "Blacks" like you do about the "White" Otto West is called "racism". Say what you want, but that's currently the legal regulation. You were not only reporting, you were suggesting too.

And now, you are hiding yourself behind a bogus argument.

The legal regulation? Have I broken a law?

Oh, my...

Alf wrote:

Faust wrote:So, Otto,you're poor and educated. And white. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are white and educated yet poor? I talk to poor white people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.

That's anti-White racism.

Replace the word "white" with the word "black", and you'll get this:

Kunta Kinte,you're poor and educated. And black. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are black and educated yet poor? I talk to poor black people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.

Many white liberals espouse an anti-white mentality.

Faust doesn’t mind being anti-White, actually it’s good manners to be anti-White among the “Inner Party” members. Some do so to stay in cover but many have simply adopted this mindset as their own.
If the boss doesn’t like cheesecake and sees it as a moral virtue to not like cheesecake then his employees will tend to also not like cheesecake. A few will feign it but many will simply learn to appreciate this new taste because of it. One could call it an acquired taste.

This anti-White hatred is not to be confused with the ‘hate’, ’bigotry’ and ‘racism’ which the Inner Party members like to project on the White working class and generally Whites not playing ball with the (((boss))), in this game of White dispossession.
Imagine saying that the current economic social paradigm is for making labor cheaper by flooding the country with immigrants who work for less money and have their social-economic ties and status still in their homeland where they send their money while the White working class has to compete against them in the local socio-economic realities and then insinuate that White people who are poor must have something wrong with them.

Says the increase of cheap labor is an inevitable part of the current economic social paradigm yet doesn’t understand how people are poor.

There are lots of college educated Whites who are already poor and there will be many more to follow that’s a reality and it’s also not surprising.
Thankfully the current elite and managerial classes (who will also experience a tightening around their neck) can always hide behind the magical properties of democracy which render those in power to be mere servants of the people and thus free of any charge.

To the starving people they said “Let them have cake”.
But actually that was never said by Marie-Antoinette, it’s attributed to her, projected, by the same kinds of people who are now openly admitting that the racial displacement and replacement of Whites in their homelands is social policy. Then they turn around and say: ”What’s wrong with you? Why are you poor? You have White privilege after all. ”

…No, they are not That mentally retarded, they are just seething with anti-White hatred.

WendyDarling wrote:

Alf wrote:

Faust wrote:So, Otto,you're poor and educated. And white. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are white and educated yet poor? I talk to poor white people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.

That's anti-White racism.

Replace the word "white" with the word "black", and you'll get this:

Kunta Kinte,you're poor and educated. And black. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are black and educated yet poor? I talk to poor black people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.

Many white liberals espouse an anti-white mentality.

For the record, while i am white, I am not a liberal. In fact, I am a registered Republican. That doesn't make me necessarily a conservative on all issues, but neither does it make me a liberal. Neither am i anti-white. I am curious to know why any educated person, especially a white one, can be chronically poor. I do know that there can be reasons, some of which I have mentioned. None of those may be the reason why otto is poor, despite being educated. It could be a physical disability. I don't know, which is why I am asking.

Is_Yde_opN wrote:Faust doesn’t mind being anti-White, actually it’s good manners to be anti-White among the “Inner Party” members. Some do so to stay in cover but many have simply adopted this mindset as their own.
If the boss doesn’t like cheesecake and sees it as a moral virtue to not like cheesecake then his employees will tend to also not like cheesecake. A few will feign it but many will simply learn to appreciate this new taste because of it. One could call it an acquired taste.

This anti-White hatred is not to be confused with the ‘hate’, ’bigotry’ and ‘racism’ which the Inner Party members like to project on the White working class and generally Whites not playing ball with the (((boss))), in this game of White dispossession.
Imagine saying that the current economic social paradigm is for making labor cheaper by flooding the country with immigrants who work for less money and have their social-economic ties and status still in their homeland where they send their money while the White working class has to compete against them in the local socio-economic realities and then insinuate that White people who are poor must have something wrong with them.

Says the increase of cheap labor is an inevitable part of the current economic social paradigm yet doesn’t understand how people are poor.

There are lots of college educated Whites who are already poor and there will be many more to follow that’s a reality and it’s also not surprising.
Thankfully the current elite and managerial classes (who will also experience a tightening around their neck) can always hide behind the magical properties of democracy which render those in power to be mere servants of the people and thus free of any charge.

To the starving people they said “Let them have cake”.
But actually that was never said by Marie-Antoinette, it’s attributed to her, projected, by the same kinds of people who are now openly admitting that the racial displacement and replacement of Whites in their homelands is social policy. Then they turn around and say: ”What’s wrong with you? Why are you poor? You have White privilege after all. ”

…No, they are not That mentally retarded, they are just seething with anti-White hatred.

I can state unequivocally that i do not hate white people. I do not know what "inner party" means. I do support "cheap labor". That's another way of saying "increase in productivity" which is what produces affluence. I think you are referring to one mechanism for the creation of cheaper labor and not all of them, but it would be helpful if you could clarify.

I can tell you that i do not know many college educated white people who are poor solely because of economic conditions and none because of immigration. I hear the complaints, but cannot discern enough substance to deem them legitimate.

I do know many white people who are reasonably well off in part because of immigration. In the last hundred years or so, there have been millions of them. I have not known them all personally. It bears keeping in mind that income means nothing in this regard. All that counts is purchasing power, for the simple reason that money is worth only what it can buy. Discussing poverty solely in terms of income is nonsense.

All that counts is purchasing power, for the simple reason that money is worth only what it can buy.

Money can always buy cheap products and cheap mindsets which means that those cheapened lack integrity which is a liberal and Jewish way of life. I have an issue with your lack of integrity (your cheap mindset) through your support for cheap labor without using your noggin to see the consequences of the shortcuts you and other Americans take at the expense of our nation itself being overrun by uneducated, unskilled, non-assimilating illegal immigrants to the tune of over 30 million just so you can have a cheap roof and a few bucks in your pockets. Screw the other native USA citizens who cannot find work in the construction business or many other industries due to those illegal immigrants and the immigrants who stay here illegally on overextended visas so that Faust and his white cohorts can have a cheap this and that. You cheapen what it means to be a quality American who supports other quality Americans.

Was the entrepreneurial spirit born in the USA supposed to be at the expense of the USA? At little to no cost, you too can have your part of the American pie until its all gone...thanks for selling out our country so you and your anti-white buddies can have a few bucks in your pocket.

WendyDarling wrote:

Alf wrote:

Faust wrote:So, Otto,you're poor and educated. And white. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are white and educated yet poor? I talk to poor white people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.

That's anti-White racism.

Replace the word "white" with the word "black", and you'll get this:

Kunta Kinte,you're poor and educated. And black. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are black and educated yet poor? I talk to poor black people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.

Many white liberals espouse an anti-white mentality.

Is_Yde_opN wrote:Faust doesn’t mind being anti-White, actually it’s good manners to be anti-White among the “Inner Party” members. Some do so to stay in cover but many have simply adopted this mindset as their own.
If the boss doesn’t like cheesecake and sees it as a moral virtue to not like cheesecake then his employees will tend to also not like cheesecake. A few will feign it but many will simply learn to appreciate this new taste because of it. One could call it an acquired taste.

This anti-White hatred is not to be confused with the ‘hate’, ’bigotry’ and ‘racism’ which the Inner Party members like to project on the White working class and generally Whites not playing ball with the (((boss))), in this game of White dispossession.
Imagine saying that the current economic social paradigm is for making labor cheaper by flooding the country with immigrants who work for less money and have their social-economic ties and status still in their homeland where they send their money while the White working class has to compete against them in the local socio-economic realities and then insinuate that White people who are poor must have something wrong with them.

Says the increase of cheap labor is an inevitable part of the current economic social paradigm yet doesn’t understand how people are poor.

There are lots of college educated Whites who are already poor and there will be many more to follow that’s a reality and it’s also not surprising.
Thankfully the current elite and managerial classes (who will also experience a tightening around their neck) can always hide behind the magical properties of democracy which render those in power to be mere servants of the people and thus free of any charge.

To the starving people they said “Let them have cake”.
But actually that was never said by Marie-Antoinette, it’s attributed to her, projected, by the same kinds of people who are now openly admitting that the racial displacement and replacement of Whites in their homelands is social policy. Then they turn around and say: ”What’s wrong with you? Why are you poor? You have White privilege after all. ”

…No, they are not That mentally retarded, they are just seething with anti-White hatred.

WendyDarling wrote:

All that counts is purchasing power, for the simple reason that money is worth only what it can buy.

Agreed, Wendy Darling and Is Yde Opn.
Money can always buy cheap products and cheap mindsets which means that those cheapened lack integrity which is a liberal and Jewish way of life. I have an issue with your lack of integrity (your cheap mindset) through your support for cheap labor without using your noggin to see the consequences of the shortcuts you and other Americans take at the expense of our nation itself being overrun by uneducated, unskilled, non-assimilating illegal immigrants to the tune of over 30 million just so you can have a cheap roof and a few bucks in your pockets. Screw the other native USA citizens who cannot find work in the construction business or many other industries due to those illegal immigrants and the immigrants who stay here illegally on overextended visas so that Faust and his white cohorts can have a cheap this and that. You cheapen what it means to be a quality American who supports other quality Americans.

Was the entrepreneurial spirit born in the USA supposed to be at the expense of the USA? At little to no cost, you too can have your part of the American pie until its all gone...thanks for selling out our country so you and your anti-white buddies can have a few bucks in your pocket.

Agreed, Wendy Darling and Is Yde Opn.

WendyDarling wrote:

All that counts is purchasing power, for the simple reason that money is worth only what it can buy.

Money can always buy cheap products and cheap mindsets which means that those cheapened lack integrity which is a liberal and Jewish way of life. I have an issue with your lack of integrity (your cheap mindset) through your support for cheap labor without using your noggin to see the consequences of the shortcuts you and other Americans take at the expense of our nation itself being overrun by uneducated, unskilled, non-assimilating illegal immigrants to the tune of over 30 million just so you can have a cheap roof and a few bucks in your pockets. Screw the other native USA citizens who cannot find work in the construction business or many other industries due to those illegal immigrants and the immigrants who stay here illegally on overextended visas so that Faust and his white cohorts can have a cheap this and that. You cheapen what it means to be a quality American who supports other quality Americans.

Was the entrepreneurial spirit born in the USA supposed to be at the expense of the USA? At little to no cost, you too can have your part of the American pie until its all gone...thanks for selling out our country so you and your anti-white buddies can have a few bucks in your pocket.

Labor became cheaper when computers were commonly used in business, because humans became more productive. An hour of human labor could produce more work. So yes, i am all for cheap labor. Labor also became cheaper in the construction industry when power tools came into use. It became more expensive with health and safety regulations, for instance. When truckdrivers' actual driving hours (without rest) were restricted, labor became more expensive. That's pretty simple stuff.

When an illegal immigrant takes less than minimum wage to work a job, labor becomes less expensive - but this is a different case than the others. There is no law against computers. There are laws to restrict driving times. Laws. When illegals are paid less than minimum, a law is broken. We could argue about the law, but if it's broken, then someone should be charged with a crime. When legal immigrants will take less than native born americans, it's just the market.

Now, we can argue about immigration quotas if you like. But it is clear that the economy benefits from at least some immigration. The answer is a dispassionate look at immigration laws, from an economic point of view. It is not to disallow all immigration. Most of us are the product of immigration. What has happened is that this has become, for some, a purely moral argument. That's just dumb. Moral views should charge our economic thoughts, become part of them. But a purely moral argument removes the issues from real world context. Morality has to be applied to something for it to have meaning.

What I am still seeking is the answer to this question - why are you poor? That's not rhetorical - i assume there is a reason. And if you are not poor, then what are you bitching about?

Labor became cheaper when computers were commonly used in business, because humans became more productive. An hour of human labor could produce more work. So yes, i am all for cheap labor. Labor also became cheaper in the construction industry when power tools came into use. It became more expensive with health and safety regulations, for instance. When truckdrivers' actual driving hours (without rest) were restricted, labor became more expensive. That's pretty simple stuff.

So you are a proponent for technology putting the worker out of business, since an automated everything would make labor cheaper until obsolete? You don't see any problem with that end?

When illegals are paid less than minimum, a law is broken.

By the very nature of their illegal existence in this country, yes, laws have been broken.

We could argue about the law, but if it's broken, then someone should be charged with a crime.

The criminal illegal for being here illegally first and foremost. They need to be deported...no, there needs to be border security so these other laws of less than minimum wage being violated won't be an issue. No illegals, no issues of less than minimum wage being paid by companies far and wide that are on the books. There are always going to be unscrupulous people wheeling and dealing off the books, but that becomes an issue for the citizen who is being treated unfairly in his workplace...them laws and them police who serve legal residents and legal visitors.

Moral views should charge our economic thoughts, become part of them. But a purely moral argument removes the issues from real world context. Morality has to be applied to something for it to have meaning.

What are moral views in your opinion? I mean, you aren't stating anything so your words have to be applied to something too for them to have any meaning.

Liberals should have the right, but also the duty to go home, back to Africa, because they like to be a "product of immigration" and are "Africans", at least according to the "Out of Africa" hypothesis. A new state as an old one should be founded there again. Liberals may call this state "Liberia 2.0".

"So you are a proponent for technology putting the worker out of business, since an automated everything would make labor cheaper until obsolete? You don't see any problem with that end?"

Well, you can't automate everything, so that is not a concern. But saying i want 50% of something does not imply that I want 100% of it. This is the politics of fear, similar to the idea that if we allow same-sex marriage, we must allow bestial marriages. It's a burlesque of rational thinking, nit rational thinking itself. The slippery slope argument is not a valid one. Ever.

"By the very nature of their illegal existence in this country, yes, laws have been broken."

Agreed.

"The criminal illegal for being here illegally first and foremost. They need to be deported...no, there needs to be border security so these other laws of less than minimum wage being violated won't be an issue. No illegals, no issues of less than minimum wage being paid by companies far and wide that are on the books. There are always going to be unscrupulous people wheeling and dealing off the books, but that becomes an issue for the citizen who is being treated unfairly in his workplace...them laws and them police who serve legal residents and legal visitors."

Not all illegals are criminals. Unlawful presence is, for instance, not subject to criminal penalties. That happens when people overstay their work visas. Not all wage theft is criminal either, at least in my state. Wage theft is an issue among workers that are not illegal, as well. So you're not correct to say that eliminating illegals would eliminate that problem. (I'm not sure if you back away from that or not.)

But one way to solve the problem is to make the illegals legal. I'm guessing that this is not what you want. But it means that the criminality of illegal aliens is not the real issue. So let's say they are all granted amnesty and citizenship. What is your argument against them in that case?

Well, you can't automate everything, so that is not a concern. But saying i want 50% of something does not imply that I want 100% of it. This is the politics of fear, similar to the idea that if we allow same-sex marriage, we must allow bestial marriages. It's a burlesque of rational thinking, nit rational thinking itself. The slippery slope argument is not a valid one. Ever.

Industries overall only needing to employ one or two people out of every million would make workers obsolete which is still not the 100% you brought up, but a problem for the other 300,000,000+ citizens who need incomes nonetheless.

Are you an absurdist? Do you want 50% of reality to be 100% absurd? Do you believe that your replies are rational, from a person with integrity, who values their country?

Unlawful presence is, for instance, not subject to criminal penalties.

Detainment and deportation are criminal penalties paid for by American citizens rather than the illegals. New laws and criminal rehabilitations need to be enacted to curtail illegal immigration to the USA once and for all. Other countries don't jack around with illegals like our country does to appease unscrupulous cheapskates who thrive off of others' desperation.

Not all wage theft is criminal either, at least in my state. Wage theft is an issue among workers that are not illegal, as well. So you're not correct to say that eliminating illegals would eliminate that problem. (I'm not sure if you back away from that or not.)

I've already covered the rampant aspect of this issue, but of course you were only paying 50% attention.

But one way to solve the problem is to make the illegals legal. I'm guessing that this is not what you want. But it means that the criminality of illegal aliens is not the real issue. So let's say they are all granted amnesty and citizenship. What is your argument against them in that case?

Off into absurdism you go without shame. Why would any country wish to mistreat their native populations by welcoming millions of unskilled, uneducated, non-English speaking, non-assimilating foreigners into their countries, foreigners who cost their native societies more than they contribute? What you propose is absurd and would further decimate what is left of this country. Why do you hate the United States 50% and hate the principles it was founded on 100%?

Ganja smoking destroys brain cells.

"Industries overall only needing to employ one or two people out of every million would make workers obsolete which is still not the 100% you brought up, but a problem for the other 300,000,000+ citizens who need incomes nonetheless."

Oh, my......

You just don't get it, do you?

"Detainment and deportation are criminal penalties paid for by American citizens rather than the illegals. New laws and criminal rehabilitations need to be enacted to curtail illegal immigration to the USA once and for all. Other countries don't jack around with illegals like our country does to appease unscrupulous cheapskates who thrive off of others' desperation."

I guess you don't read then international press much.

"Off into absurdism you go without shame. Why would any country wish to mistreat their native populations by welcoming millions of unskilled, uneducated, non-English speaking, non-assimilating foreigners into their countries, foreigners who cost their native societies more than they contribute? What you propose is absurd and would further decimate what is left of this country. Why do you hate the United States 50% and hate the principles it was founded on 100%?"

TMFETRT (Too many factual errors to respond to)

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Faust wrote:So, Otto,you're poor and educated. And white. Can you explain why you are all of these things? I mean why you are white and educated yet poor? I talk to poor white people a lot. Mostly, they're mentally ill or lazy. Or they just don't care much about money. Or they have a drug problem.

Faust wrote:For the record, while i am white, I am not a liberal. In fact, I am a registered Republican. That doesn't make me necessarily a conservative on all issues, but neither does it make me a liberal. Neither am i anti-white. I am curious to know why any educated person, especially a white one, can be chronically poor. I do know that there can be reasons, some of which I have mentioned. None of those may be the reason why otto is poor, despite being educated. It could be a physical disability. I don't know, which is why I am asking.

You are asking because you "don't know"?
You are "curious to know why an educated person, especially a white one, can be chronically poor"?
Have you noticed that we live in the 21st century?
Do you live under a rock or on the dark side of the moon?


There is no contradiction between being a poor and being a well educated white. Either you (a) are too dumb to know the facts (and correct premises), or you (b) use bogus arguments - rhetorically or not rhetorically (see: a).

You started being biased in 1958, as you've stated in your signature. So, apparently, you have never noticed that your society has produced more and more poorness and that especially the universities of your society (and those of other Western societes too) have produced a poor precariat of well educated whites (think for example of all the unemployed becoming hippies, flower people, punks, taxi drivers etc.), an academic precarity.

If you are well educated, you aren't necessarily prevented against poorness. There are corresponding proverbs in many languages. So this is common sense. You should have known it. But you haven't.

Common sense is dead.

Faust wrote:When legal immigrants will take less than native born americans, it's just the market.

And if it is vice versa, it's just the market too. This market would be less free. So what? It would still be a market.

Faust wrote:Now, we can argue about immigration quotas if you like. But it is clear that the economy benefits from at least some immigration. The answer is a dispassionate look at immigration laws, from an economic point of view. It is not to disallow all immigration. Most of us are the product of immigration.

The "Out of Africa" hypothesis again:

Alf wrote:Liberals should have the right, but also the duty to go home, back to Africa, because they like to be a "product of immigration" and are "Africans", at least according to the "Out of Africa" hypothesis. A new state as an old one should be founded there again. Liberals may call this state "Liberia 2.0".

Faust wrote:... you can't automate everything ....

You can't automate everything, yes, but others can.

Faust wrote:Not all illegas are criminals.

PC

Not all Fausts are Faustians.

Faust wrote:

WendyDarling wrote:The criminal illegal for being here illegally first and foremost. They need to be deported...no, there needs to be border security so these other laws of less than minimum wage being violated won't be an issue. No illegals, no issues of less than minimum wage being paid by companies far and wide that are on the books. There are always going to be unscrupulous people wheeling and dealing off the books, but that becomes an issue for the citizen who is being treated unfairly in his workplace...them laws and them police who serve legal residents and legal visitors.

Not all illegals are criminals. Unlawful presence is, for instance, not subject to criminal penalties. That happens when people overstay their work visas. Not all wage theft is criminal either, at least in my state. Wage theft is an issue among workers that are not illegal, as well. So you're not correct to say that eliminating illegals would eliminate that problem.

So, you are saying that all allopathic medicine is an error. If you've morbid bacteria in your mouth, you won't go to the dentist in order to get rid of the morbid bacteria.

WendyDarling wrote:Common sense is dead.

Common sense will never die.

It died in Faust and all the raving liberals.

WendyDarling wrote:It died in Faust and all the raving liberals.

That is probably true, isn't it?

Not probably, but absolutely.