View Poll Results: Where do you land?

Voters
87. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am wealthy, and favor tax hikes for the wealthy

    9 10.34%
  • I am not wealthy, and favor tax hikes for the wealthy

    32 36.78%
  • I am wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy

    0 0%
  • I am not wealthy, and against tax hikes for the wealthy

    34 39.08%
  • Other

    12 13.79%
  • Unsure

    0 0%
Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 178

Thread: Where do you land

  1. #121
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    By modern standards, sure. But standards change and just because we think one thing today doesn't make what we think necessarily true. Next year, we might think something different, is it fair to apply the future standards to you today?
    I'm not saying it's not understandable. I'm saying it's still racism. Call it what it is. Standards for what truly qualifies as racism or racist don't change over time. Racism has a very specific definition. Just like one thing isn't socialist one day, then not-socialist then next. Racism isn't time-relative; just because everyone else is racist in your society doesn't make you not a racist. Words have meaning.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 07-04-11 at 06:46 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  2. #122
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I'm not saying it's not understandable. I'm saying it's still racism. Call it what it is. Standards for what truly qualifies as racism or racist don't change over time. Racism has a very specific definition. Just like one thing isn't socialist one day, then not-socialist then next. Racism isn't time-relative; just because everyone else is racist in your society doesn't make you not a racist. Words have meaning.
    Exactly. Racism's definition never changes. A racist in 1776 is a racist in 2011. What changes over time is the normality and acceptance of racism.

  3. #123
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    Exactly. Racism's definition never changes. A racist in 1776 is a racist in 2011. What changes over time is the normality and acceptance of racism.
    Totally disagree for a few reasons - the best of which is there was no such thing as racism in 1776, therefore there were no "racists" per se. What changes over time is the definition ... the word racist didn't exist (nor did racists) before 1932. Earlier words meaning basically the same thing like racialism, were from 1871. Racism's definition in 1932 and into the late 1930's was originally used in the context of Nazi theories and was not about those from African decent. The definition was expanded during the civil rights movement and adopted by the same.

    Online Etymology Dictionary

    Opentopia agrees with the entymology:

    Etymology
    Quote Originally Posted by Opentopia
    The term "racism" appeared in the 1930s, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. It was considered distinct from the "theories of race," which had existed for at least 100 years before that. Pierre-André Taguieff (1987) shows that "racism" and "racist" appeared in the French Larousse Dictionary in 1932, with "racist" being defined as "the name given to the German national-socialists, designating, rather than the sole Nazi Party (NSDAP), the whole of the völkisch movement. The word "racist" is also occasionally used in Edouard Drumont's anti-Semitic La Libre Parole or by Maurice Barrès concerning the "French race".
    Racism - Find out more on Opentopia
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  4. #124
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Totally disagree for a few reasons - the best of which is there was no such thing as racism in 1776, therefore there were no "racists" per se. What changes over time is the definition ... the word racist didn't exist (nor did racists) before 1932. Earlier words meaning basically the same thing like racialism, were from 1871. Racism's definition in 1932 and into the late 1930's was originally used in the context of Nazi theories and was not about those from African decent. The definition was expanded during the civil rights movement and adopted by the same.

    Online Etymology Dictionary

    Opentopia agrees with the entymology:

    Etymology


    Racism - Find out more on Opentopia
    The CONCEPT of racism, and racist attitudes, have existed forever. There just wasn't a word for it.

    Obviously, racism in the past didn't take the form that it does now, and people in the past didn't think the same way about racism the way we do now, but at the core of its definition, racism is still the belief in the superiority of one race over another. And that, is a timeless concept/attitude.

    btw this thread has been so derailed its not even funny. My apologies.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 07-04-11 at 08:01 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #125
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Totally disagree for a few reasons - the best of which is there was no such thing as racism in 1776, therefore there were no "racists" per se. What changes over time is the definition ... the word racist didn't exist (nor did racists) before 1932. Earlier words meaning basically the same thing like racialism, were from 1871. Racism's definition in 1932 and into the late 1930's was originally used in the context of Nazi theories and was not about those from African decent. The definition was expanded during the civil rights movement and adopted by the same.

    Online Etymology Dictionary

    Opentopia agrees with the entymology:

    Etymology

    Racism - Find out more on Opentopia
    Right, but racism is a word that describes a reality that has existed for centuries. CC claimed that thinking blacks were inferior to whites was not racism in 1776, but that's not true. Racism is by definition believing in the superiority of one or more races over others, so regardless of whether the word for that attitude existed in 1776 and regardless if thinking of one race as superior to others was normal, it was still racism. What other word describes "the belief that one race is superior to another"?

    A similar example would be if a capitalist society existed before the invention of the word "capitalism", it was still a capitalist society regardless if that word was used at the time. I'm arguing from the perspective that a word is a just a word and that the meaning is what has always existed. So while racism - the word - has not always existed. The meaning of the word - the reality that it describes - has always existed and it's the same in every time period, no matter how normal it was.
    Last edited by ThePlayDrive; 07-04-11 at 08:03 PM.

  6. #126
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    The CONCEPT of racism, and racist attitudes, have existed forever. There just wasn't a word for it.
    I'm going to disagree again, just because I can. The concept of racism is a modern one. Before such a word existed there were slaves, or peasants (otherwise called serfs), or a dislike of anyone not the same as others. Racism did not always exist - racism as a concept is a modern one. If you choose to see the past and distant past in modern terms, yes - the moderns view of it would be considered racism using the modern concept and word for it.

    Transport you back 300 years and there's no such thing. You were a have, or a have not. Nothing else.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #127
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,145

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Exactly, and it's taxed at a much lower rate than regular income...which makes the income tax less progressive than it appears at a first glance.
    1. capital gains tax is paid on money that has already been taxed
    2. the wealthy disproportionately pay it and thus
    3. to try to "average" it in there to lower someone's tax burden (given that it is an additional tax) is sort of a misnomer. it is, after all, an additional tax - the way we punish you for investing in American business.

    all the capital gains tax does is increase the degree to which we are having the wealthy pay for the rest of us.

    I'm not sure what you mean. It's not just a matter of the effective rates being roughly the same (although they are). It's also a matter of the wealthy really not paying much more as a proportion of total taxes than the middle-class does, relative to the amount of income that they have. For example, the top 1% of earners take in 20.3% of the income in this country and pay 21.5% of total taxes. Whereas the middle quintile earns 11.6% of income and pays 10.3% in taxes. That doesn't look very progressive to me. In fact, it looks pretty flat.
    I would like to see a sourcing for those figures.

  8. #128
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I'm going to disagree again, just because I can. The concept of racism is a modern one. Before such a word existed there were slaves, or peasants (otherwise called serfs), or a dislike of anyone not the same as others. Racism did not always exist - racism as a concept is a modern one. If you choose to see the past and distant past in modern terms, yes - the moderns view of it would be considered racism using the modern concept and word for it.

    Transport you back 300 years and there's no such thing. You were a have, or a have not. Nothing else.
    I noticed you didn't respond to my comment. That leads me to believe that you agree with me, but would rather be silent instead of acknowledging it.

    The bold part is absolutely not true. Blacks were thought of as inferior to whites - as were Native Americans and Asians. So what do you call someone who thinks of one race as superior to others Ockham? What word describes that reality which existed 300 years ago?

    Like I said, if a capitalist society existed 300 years before the word "capitalism" was used, the society was still a capitalist society. If a racist existed 300 years before the word was used, he's still a racist.

  9. #129
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I'm going to disagree again, just because I can. The concept of racism is a modern one. Before such a word existed there were slaves, or peasants (otherwise called serfs), or a dislike of anyone not the same as others. Racism did not always exist - racism as a concept is a modern one. If you choose to see the past and distant past in modern terms, yes - the moderns view of it would be considered racism using the modern concept and word for it.

    Transport you back 300 years and there's no such thing. You were a have, or a have not. Nothing else.
    Our CURRENT understanding of race and racism is what's modern. Racist attitudes certainly existed way back in the past. A racist is a racist is a racist is someone who believes one race to be superior to another. There's really no two ways about it. Racist beliefs/worldviews/attitudes existed, at LEAST as far back as the renaissance and enlightenment era, when European nations were coming into contact with people who were radically different from themselves.

    Racism is a word, with a concrete definition used to describe a concrete reality. Whether we are imposing modern views onto the past is irrelevant. Those people are still racists regardless of time period. That's basically my point.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  10. #130
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Where do you land

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    1. capital gains tax is paid on money that has already been taxed
    2. the wealthy disproportionately pay it and thus
    3. to try to "average" it in there to lower someone's tax burden (given that it is an additional tax) is sort of a misnomer. it is, after all, an additional tax - the way we punish you for investing in American business.
    That's not how the average/effective tax rate is calculated. Add up all the various taxes you pay (e.g. payroll, sales, traditional income, capital gains income, excise, state/local taxes), then divide by the amount of money you made. Factoring all of those different taxes in, the wealthy do not pay a significantly higher tax burden than the middle class.

    all the capital gains tax does is increase the degree to which we are having the wealthy pay for the rest of us.
    It is an income tax (i.e. a tax levied on money you have made), but it is taxed at a lower rate than other forms of income.

    I would like to see a sourcing for those figures.
    http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
    The actual numbers are from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-05-11 at 01:13 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •