Trump's Payroll Tax Cut Will Kill Social Security by 2023

[MrCalavera]

Family is favoritism. Family creates inequality.

Gee, maybe the likes of you that push this model contribute to "communists" wanting to abolish what they perceive as traditional family, then?

 

[tstorm823]

That this is how you think of family is more revealing of you than of anybody left of you.

Are you suggesting that inequality has no dependency on what family you're from?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I don't believe Tstorm is saying all this as what he sees as being what family is primarily about but rather a natural consequence of family. People acquire hoard wealth, parents will use that wealth to improve the chances for their children to be successful in life which gives them an "unfair" advantage over children brought up in poorer families. Thus, so long as such a thing exists, there will be inequality of some sort in our society. The children could go to the same public schools but the child from the wealthier family will still have more ease and access to roads of success than the poorer child.

 

[Buyetyen]

I don't believe Tstorm is saying all this as what he sees as being what family is primarily about but rather a natural consequence of family. People acquire hoard wealth, parents will use that wealth to improve the chances for their children to be successful in life which gives them an "unfair" advantage over children brought up in poorer families. Thus, so long as such a thing exists, there will be inequality of some sort in our society. The children could go to the same public schools but the child from the wealthier family will still have more ease and access to roads of success than the poorer child.

If so then he should learn to communicate better and stop assuming that people rolling their eyes at him is a vindication of his paranoid fantasies.

 

[stroopwafel]

As in all things, there are different interpretations in different times and places because circumstances change. It's important to try and understand the theory away from the circumstances. What's the issue with family that runs contrary to a classless, stateless society? What is family but a distinction between one group of people from the rest? That's a class of people. It may look as though some of what Marx would want may be implemented by now, that child labor is gone in many places and education is socialized, but modern education is almost less about education than it is about class hierarchy. I don't think even wealth as a metric can compete with the classicism that is modern education and the degree system. Inheritance is still very much a thing, one that many actively protest, and even if inheritance at death ceased to be a thing, passing the things you own to your children while alive would still be a thing. That's all utterly incompatible with communism.

Family is favoritism. Family creates inequality. If your sole goal is equality, it makes perfect sense to go after the institution of the family. The logic makes sense. The historical record is there. People claiming I'm wrong are gaslighting this, badly.

Fact is people only have solidarity with their tribe and most importantly their next of kin. That is how humans have evolved. It is not until agriculture and societies becoming more complex that these notions started to transcend the practical. The fact modern society dictates people to have solidarity with people they don't even know often at the expense of their own benefit makes this a purely theoretical exercise with strict limitations. It's why for example welfare states in Europe worked before the population decline and mass influx of immigrants that reproduce at a much higher rate. And why it never worked for the U.S.: the population is simply too heterogenous so you will never find the solidarity needed for income redistribution. There needs to be a sentiment of mutual reciprocation. In Europe for example immigration and islam undermines this collective solidarity something that never even existed in the U.S. in the first place because it's a country build on immigration.

What we have seen since the industrial revolution is drastic technological changes that have fundamentally changed the way society functions but have not altered human nature because that is set in stone as it's the product of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. The stability of any society depends on the degree to which one is able to invest in their children and the rate of reproductive success that makes these investments worthwhile. That is why governments fear masses of young men with nothing to lose and why society wants to control female sexuality.

It's that need to be part of a group(the tribe) and the instinct for survival(reproductive success). The family, as such, is the perfect extension of that ideal. It is part of the tribe that might not know eachother personally like in the Pleistocene but still shares the same values and history ie a homogenous society. Beyond that the solidarity falls apart because nations are pretty artificial constructs. But it are exactly these constructs that academics theorize about without ever really addressing the deeper sentiments of human nature that simply rejects 'difference'. People reject it, nations reject it, the world rejects. It's 'us' vs 'them' regardless of who is us or them is. That's how it was, that's how it will always be.

 

[lil devils x]

Fact is people only have solidarity with their tribe and most importantly their next of kin. That is how humans have evolved. It is not until agriculture and societies becoming more complex that these notions started to transcend the practical. The fact modern society dictates people to have solidarity with people they don't even know often at the expense of their own benefit makes this a purely theoretical exercise with strict limitations. It's why for example welfare states in Europe worked before the population decline and mass influx of immigrants that reproduce at a much higher rate. And why it never worked for the U.S.: the population is simply too heterogenous so you will never find the solidarity needed for income redistribution. There needs to be a sentiment of mutual reciprocation. In Europe for example immigration and islam undermines this collective solidarity something that never even existed in the U.S. in the first place because it's a country build on immigration.

What we have seen since the industrial revolution is drastic technological changes that have fundamentally changed the way society functions but have not altered human nature because that is set in stone as it's the product of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. The stability of any society depends on the degree to which one is able to invest in their children and the rate of reproductive success that makes these investments worthwhile. That is why governments fear masses of young men with nothing to lose and why society wants to control female sexuality.

It's that need to be part of a group(the tribe) and the instinct for survival(reproductive success). The family, as such, is the perfect extension of that ideal. It is part of the tribe that might not know eachother personally like in the Pleistocene but still shares the same values and history ie a homogenous society. Beyond that the solidarity falls apart because nations are pretty artificial constructs. But it are exactly these constructs that academics theorize about without ever really addressing the deeper sentiments of human nature that simply rejects 'difference'. People reject it, nations reject it, the world rejects. It's 'us' vs 'them' regardless of who is us or them is. That's how it was, that's how it will always be.

That isn't even true of all cultures. The way we were taught was that all people of this earth are family, we are all "brothers and sisters", all related, born of this earth and that we all have equal right to be here. That we cannot own a piece of the earth, but we can only use it for a short time and that we all have a right to use this earth so that we have to share it's resources. We just expect people to be respectful of everyone else and all things and not be destructive and harmful to the earth or to others. We see THIS as human nature, not this idea that we have to fight or compete to exist. The fighting is seen as disgusting and beneath humans because we know better than to behave in such ways. This is how we have existed for thousands of years here, so this is not some new idea as a result of technology, that is a load of crap tbh. In fact, just about everything you stated here is a load of crap.

EDIT: Our entire "Tribe" is made up of numerous clans, tribes and peoples from different religions, backgrounds and histories that all came together and agreed to a lifestyle choice. To be Hopi isn't to be of a certain family or people, it means " peaceful ones" and those who agreed to live here agreed to be peaceful and share this lifestyle choice. To be of a tribe even meaning of a certain bloodline was imposed upon Native American tribes against our will by Europeans, not that we exist this way or what even a tribe means among our people. Native American Tribes are all separate nations who trade, intermarry and assists one another and each tribe was a lifestyle choice not just because they were a separate family. That was a European invention, not the way people have lived here for thousands of years without need of such a system being forced upon them artificially.

 

[Buyetyen]

Fact is people only have solidarity with their tribe and most importantly their next of kin. That is how humans have evolved.

Evo-psych is bullshit because it assumes these things rather than actually observing them in present-day hunter-gather societies.

The fact modern society dictates people to have solidarity with people they don't even know often at the expense of their own benefit makes this a purely theoretical exercise with strict limitations. It's why for example welfare states in Europe worked before the population decline and mass influx of immigrants that reproduce at a much higher rate. And why it never worked for the U.S.: the population is simply too heterogenous so you will never find the solidarity needed for income redistribution. There needs to be a sentiment of mutual reciprocation. In Europe for example immigration and islam undermines this collective solidarity something that never even existed in the U.S. in the first place because it's a country build on immigration.

Translation: We evolved to be racist and can't change the fact that we are inherently fucking racist so just let us be racist.

that is set in stone

Bull! The fuck! Shit! Leaving aside the fact that you have a very 1-dimensional caricature model of human nature, the sheer spectrum of the human experience and condition puts the lie to that. If our nature was so set in stone, we would not see the vast permutations of cultures that we do.

as it's the product of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. The stability of any society depends on the degree to which one is able to invest in their children and the rate of reproductive success that makes these investments worthwhile. That is why governments fear masses of young men with nothing to lose and why society wants to control female sexuality.

Again, this is all assumption. Evo-psych is fucking bullshit.

It's that need to be part of a group(the tribe) and the instinct for survival(reproductive success). The family, as such, is the perfect extension of that ideal. It is part of the tribe that might not know eachother personally like in the Pleistocene but still shares the same values and history ie a homogenous society. Beyond that the solidarity falls apart because nations are pretty artificial constructs. But it are exactly these constructs that academics theorize about without ever really addressing the deeper sentiments of human nature that simply rejects 'difference'. People reject it, nations reject it, the world rejects. It's 'us' vs 'them' regardless of who is us or them is. That's how it was, that's how it will always be.

First off, once again assuming that boning has that much of an influence on our day-to-day decisions.

Second, perfect extension? By what metric? How is this not just apologetics for racism and incest?

Third, declaring nations an artificial construct is an arbitrary distinction as most of our society is artificial constructs, up to and including every model of government, economy, religion and folklore. Again, this is evo-psych making a shit load of assumptions and then extrapolating outward from those assumptions without vetting them.

Fourth, your conclusion really is just apologetics for racism.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't believe Tstorm is saying all this as what he sees as being what family is primarily about but rather a natural consequence of family. People acquire hoard wealth, parents will use that wealth to improve the chances for their children to be successful in life which gives them an "unfair" advantage over children brought up in poorer families. Thus, so long as such a thing exists, there will be inequality of some sort in our society. The children could go to the same public schools but the child from the wealthier family will still have more ease and access to roads of success than the poorer child.

The thing worth noting is that I express all this, but from my perspective none of the description holds much moral weight because I don't believe equality is a primary goal. It sounds bad when described just in terms of equality, 2 people having wildly different experiences based just on the circumstances or behavior of their parents, but if it's one family going above and beyond and they raise a good person who becomes something like a doctor, that's gonna be good for everyone. All things being equal, equality is preferred, no doubt. But all other things aren't equal, the choice is rarely between one person's prosperity and everyone's prosperity, but rather one person vs nobody. Making a better life for your children rarely comes at the expense of others. It's strictly less equal, but that doesn't mean it's worse.

In the post-enlightenment world, a lot of political questions hinge on where people prioritize liberty, justice, equality, and the much older value of prosperity. Depending on what you think is important, the same circumstances can be viewed as very good or very bad.

If so then he should learn to communicate better and stop assuming that people rolling their eyes at him is a vindication of his paranoid fantasies.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

but have not altered human nature because that is set in stone as it's the product of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

I understand your perspective, but I'm gonna disagree with this point a bit. I do think there's human nature that's roughly fixed, but how that interacts with different environments is going to create very different results. It's like a chemistry problem: you may be adding the same substance to a bunch of different beakers, but if all those beakers have different temperatures and solutions in them, the thing you're adding won't behave the same.

That probably doesn't really sound like disagreement, but the trick is that we can't observe or measure human nature. All we can observe is what comes out the back end. So while we can speculate on fixed aspects of human nature beneath it all, it's all inference. And it's definitely not enough to say "oh, this thing will always happen with people."

 

[stroopwafel]

Evo-psych is bullshit because it assumes these things rather than actually observing them in present-day hunter-gather societies.

Assumes? Tribalism is the reason only Homo Sapiens survived and all the other humanoids were killed off.

Translation: We evolved to be racist and can't change the fact that we are inherently fucking racist so just let us be racist.

'Racism' is a social construct. I never said anything about racism. At best you could argue it's a byproduct of human nature rejecting difference. And that applies to all people and all cultures. Look at the world map. It shows you humanity's divide.

Bull! The fuck! Shit! Leaving aside the fact that you have a very 1-dimensional caricature model of human nature, the sheer spectrum of the human experience and condition puts the lie to that. If our nature was so set in stone, we would not see the vast permutations of cultures that we do.

Yes, cultures, ie tribes.

First off, once again assuming that boning has that much of an influence on our day-to-day decisions.

Second, perfect extension? By what metric? How is this not just apologetics for racism and incest?

Who says anything about boning? Stop inferring things here. I said the family is part of the tribe that benefits most from the mutual reciprocity that makes investing in offspring worthwhile because it shares the same values and history. That is why society celebrates the family so much. It continues the lineage.

Third, declaring nations an artificial construct is an arbitrary distinction as most of our society is artificial constructs, up to and including every model of government, economy, religion and folklore. Again, this is evo-psych making a shit load of assumptions and then extrapolating outward from those assumptions without vetting them.

Fourth, your conclusion really is just apologetics for racism.

You have nothing of substance to say so you just shout 'racism' at every turn hoping to make a point. I just literally said nations are an artificial construct. But solidarity with the tribe to promote survival and reproductive success isn't. That is the mere reason why people reject 'difference', because it threatens the status quo. The evidence is everywhere you look.

 

[lil devils x]

That is the mere reason why people reject 'difference', because it threatens the status quo. The evidence is everywhere you look.

So when we have the tribes in the US that actually CELEBRATE differences and encourage this, how does that measure up to your imaginary belief that this is " everywhere you look"? You are literally just making this crap up. It isn't remotely true. You can ignore the Americas and pretend we don't exist but that doesn't make this nonsense any more true. Hell having notable differences in cultures is how we determined whether or not a group was awarded their own village, not punished or condemned.

Oh an before people make claims about the "Apache".. The Apache are our friends and allies and we traded and intermarried with them for many generations and know the Apache better than the people making up nonsense about them. They responded the way they did AFTER the Spanish abused, tortured, enslaved, raped and killed many people. It took a great deal for the Apache to " have enough of it" and defend themselves and other tribes from this atrocity taking place. This idea that people just "attacked and killed" those who were "different" is garbage. In fact, when the Spanish first came to our lands we invited them to live along side us in peace, it was they who took that hospitality for granted and committed atrocities and forced us to have to put a end to it. It had Zero to do with them being different or having a different culture, it had everything to do with their own genocidal behavior..

Maybe it isn't " everywhere you look" but instead it is just you. You attempt to defend it to make yourself feel better like it is somehow normal, but it isn't and that is just a BS excuse to behave like a degenerate. Many cultures have existed for thousands of years without the need for any of it, have you considered that it is the cultures who are causing the problems here that ARE the problem rather than this being some universal thing they cannot control? Because this just seems like they messed up by rewarding genocidal behavior at some point and they need to make a course correction so they can move to a better path now. This behavior was created by social conditioning, not a natural state of being. They rewarded violence so it encouraged more violence. The opposite happens in societies that condemn violence. Not everyone does these things and they really should recognize that and adjust their behavior in order to finally move past their initial mistake.

 

[stroopwafel]

It had Zero to do with them being different or having a different culture, it had everything to do with their own genocidal behavior..

Yeah, because they saw you as different. They didn't feel the solidarity with your group as they did with their own. Infact it came at the detriment of the Indian tribes because they wanted to claim the land for their own. Same as the American settlers. You actually prove the entire point I tried to make.

 

[lil devils x]

Yeah, because they saw you as different. They didn't feel the solidarity with your group as they did with their own. Infact it came at the detriment of the Indian tribes because they wanted to claim the land for their own. Same as the American settlers. You actually prove the entire point I tried to make.

They being Europeans, who had a long history of constantly at war with one another until they get bored of that and go and kill everyone else. What was their excuse for killing their own people as well then? If your point was true, the Native Americans would have seen them the same way, but they didn't because not all cultures viewed others or being different the same as you do. It was to the detriment of Native Americans because we saw them as family and treated them as such, because that was the way for thousands of years and we had no reason to think otherwise.

The Europeans who invaded are the culture who rewarded that degenerate behavior, not the Native Americans. That genocidal behavior was socially conditioned in to the Europeans through the constant self inflicted conflict and rewarding people for it, not a natural state of being. If no one had been rewarded for it in Europe, they wouldn't have been socially conditioned to behave that way when they came over here. The point is this was a result of conditioning, not that everyone does it.

When you start reading through European history, it is abundantly apparent they constantly murdered one another for wealth, power, sex, or just because they didn't like the other person EVEN AMONG THEIR OWN FAMILY, trying to get " support" to kill other groups for being different was just one excuse among many that they invented as a reason to do so. They really seemed to like killing each other for a good long while from the looks of their history though. They really come across as people ruled by genocidal maniacs for the most part tbh.

 

[Buyetyen]

Assumes? Tribalism is the reason only Homo Sapiens survived and all the other humanoids were killed off.

Another unproven assumption. Mitochondrial DNA evidence shows that there was intermarriage between Homo sapiens and our evolutionary cousins. You're also assuming a lack of comparative social structure in other human species, which is absolutely bullshit.

'Racism' is a social construct. I never said anything about racism. At best you could argue it's a byproduct of human nature rejecting difference. And that applies to all people and all cultures. Look at the world map. It shows you humanity's divide.

So there's never been a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual society in human history? Shit, somebody should tell Africa, India and Indonesia. I better let the local Haudenoshaunnee know that their entire heritage is a lie.

Yes, cultures, ie tribes.

If you conflate culture and tribes, you're just admitting you know nothing about anthropology.

Who says anything about boning? Stop inferring things here. I said the family is part of the tribe that benefits most from the mutual reciprocity that makes investing in offspring worthwhile because it shares the same values and history. That is why society celebrates the family so much. It continues the lineage.

You were the one who brought up reproduction. And lineage is also a cultural construct. In fact before and well into the Enlightenment, it was considered common sense for aristocratic families to practice incestuous relationship to strengthen their bloodline, a practice that you may recognize as having the exact opposite effect.

You have nothing of substance to say so you just shout 'racism' at every turn hoping to make a point. I just literally said nations are an artificial construct. But solidarity with the tribe to promote survival and reproductive success isn't. That is the mere reason why people reject 'difference', because it threatens the status quo. The evidence is everywhere you look.

Correction: correllaries to your assumptions are everywhere. Your evidence consists entirely of your own assumptions.

 

[Neuromancer]

You're insulting me, but you aren't disagreeing.

Incorrect. I am insulting your thesis, and disagreeing at the same time. I don't see how you didn't see that I was disagreeing. Does saying " in any way imply agreement.' not explicitly show that I disagree? Must I treat you like a small child, and spell everything out? I thought not to insult your intelligence, but you are doing a good job of doing it on your own.

 

[lil devils x]

So there's never been a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual society in human history? Shit, somebody should tell Africa, India and Indonesia.

Add North, Central and South America to that list as well. Most tribes had their own language and spoke others languages as well. All the tribes of the Americas have their own languages, religions, history, and are not even the same " ethnicity" even though they are often grouped together as one because it makes it easier due to there being so many. Different groups came to the Americas at different times, some originally came to the Americas from the south in boats and some came over the Bering Strait at different times, and are all different groups of people who traded and interacted with one another throughout the trade routes that extended the American continents and the islands. The Americas were multi ethnic and multilingual LONG before Europe showed up.

 

[Buyetyen]

Add North, Central and South America to that list as well. Most tribes had their own language and spoke others languages as well. All the tribes of the Americas have their own languages, religions, history, and are not even the same " ethnicity" even though they are often grouped together as one because it makes it easier due to there being so many. Different groups came to the Americas at different times, some originally came to the Americas from the south in boats and some came over the Bering Strait at different times, and are all different groups of people who traded and interacted with one another throughout the trade routes that extended the American continents and the islands. The Americas were multi ethnic and multilingual LONG before Europe showed up.

I went back and edited in the Haudenoshaunnee as a single example that stood out in my mind. Achieved a successful democracy between multiple tribes with their own distinct cultures and languages for at least 200 years before Europeans showed up, probably longer. Respect.

 

[lil devils x]

I went back and edited in the Haudenoshaunnee as an example that stood out in my mind. Achieved a successful democracy between multiple tribes with their own distinct cultures and languages for at least 200 years before Europeans showed up, probably longer. Respect.

The Hopi did as well, That was why the Navajo are still named " newcomers" to this day because our ancestors called them that when they showed up and invited them to live along side the Hopi in peace and they have ever since. But they are just one of the more populated tribes as an example, we have had numerous other tribes also live alongside the Hopi and even join and merge into the Hopi. Chaco Canyon in the middle is where Hopi were located for trading at the heart of the map here and all trade routes connected to us.This was the main trading post for North America and we traded with Tribes from all over the continents here:

That is just a small portion of the trade routes, this actually went all the way down to south America and Polynesia as well, and the tribes had to speak other's languages in order to do this, and the tribes actually traveled and visited other tribes constantly. The idea that tribes in the Americas were isolated or separate was a fiction invented by people who knew nothing about the people here and didn't bother learning anything about us at all.

 

[Buyetyen]

The Hopi did as well, That was why the Navajo are still named " newcomers" to this day because our ancestors called them that when they showed up and invited them to live along side the Hopi in peace and they have ever since. But they are just one of the more populated tribes as an example, we have had numerous other tribes also live alongside the Hopi and even join and merge into the Hopi. Chaco Canyon in the middle is where Hopi were located for trading at the heart of the map here and all trade routes connected to us.This was the main trading post for North America and we traded with Tribes from all over the continents here:

That is just a small portion of the trade routes, this actually went all the way down to south America as well, and the tribes had to speak other's languages in order to do this, and the tribes actually traveled and visited other tribes constantly. The idea that tribes in the Americas were isolated or separate was a fiction invented by people who knew nothing about the people here and didn't bother learning anything about us at all.

I live in the Northeast, so I first started learning about the indigenous nations closest to me. In fact, I live in Pittsburgh specifically, so there were a lot of people conducting trade on the 3 rivers before a Frenchman stumbled on the fork. Many Iroquois and Algonquin peoples actually built our skyscrapers in the early 20th. A lot of different names come up in this region, though Algonquian languages seem the most common. Kind of wish we could change Mt. Washington back to Monongahela, though. Sounds cooler, less baggage.

I worked as a tour guide at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History for a couple of years. I loved getting assigned to the Cultural Halls (Ancient Egypt and Native Americans). It wasn't a lot, but it was more than I ever got in school. I like to think I helped some people see past the stereotypes and misinformation.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

The thing worth noting is that I express all this, but from my perspective none of the description holds much moral weight because I don't believe equality is a primary goal. It sounds bad when described just in terms of equality, 2 people having wildly different experiences based just on the circumstances or behavior of their parents, but if it's one family going above and beyond and they raise a good person who becomes something like a doctor, that's gonna be good for everyone. All things being equal, equality is preferred, no doubt. But all other things aren't equal, the choice is rarely between one person's prosperity and everyone's prosperity, but rather one person vs nobody. Making a better life for your children rarely comes at the expense of others. It's strictly less equal, but that doesn't mean it's worse.

In the post-enlightenment world, a lot of political questions hinge on where people prioritize liberty, justice, equality, and the much older value of prosperity. Depending on what you think is important, the same circumstances can be viewed as very good or very bad.

I figured you were simply taking the logic espoused by comunism and seeing it through to its logic conclusion and not actually advocating for the idea as your own belief.

 

[lil devils x]

I live in the Northeast, so I first started learning about the indigenous nations closest to me. In fact, I live in Pittsburgh specifically, so there were a lot of people conducting trade on the 3 rivers before a Frenchman stumbled on the fork. Many Iroquois and Algonquin peoples actually built our skyscrapers in the early 20th. A lot of different names come up in this region, though Algonquian languages seem the most common. Kind of wish we could change Mt. Washington back to Monongahela, though. Sounds cooler, less baggage.

I worked as a tour guide at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History for a couple of years. I loved getting assigned to the Cultural Halls (Ancient Egypt and Native Americans). It wasn't a lot, but it was more than I ever got in school. I like to think I helped some people see past the stereotypes and misinformation.

That is pretty cool that you could participate in that. It was funny, Back in 2006, I told my friend that the Hopi were running to Mexcio City, just like they have for thousands of years, they thought it insane, they were like "Run?!!" like with their feet?" and couldn't believe that people actually do that. LMAO. They didn't realize that people just did this all the time for a very long time. HAHA! Native Americans still call the mountains, rivers and valleys what we always have. It's not our fault if other's didn't bother asking what the name was before going and renaming everything. XD