When i wake up in the morning, i piss excellence. I was just born this intelligent man, unfortunately the guilt bearing this cross is overwhelming.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
"DEAR AMERICA: You Should Be Mad As Hell About This"
- Thread starter Polari
- Start date
- Status
When i wake up in the morning, i piss excellence. I was just born this intelligent man, unfortunately the guilt bearing this cross is overwhelming.
I think the only way you'd have a generation of kids promised that is if your grandchildren had kids, if that. I was thinking if things didn't get better when I was in my 30s (I'm 22) that I'd bail to another country. The problem I find is I wouldn't know where, as other countries have their fair share of issues with the economy. My friends in Canada may have superior health care, but the job front is bad for them too. All I'd like is a simple job and a situation where I don't have to fear getting sick. I don't want a house, a car, or a family. I think even aiming low has lots of difficulties.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Man, reading the OP makes me say F*** the Bush tax cuts 1 year extension. Let them all expire.
As much as I get pissed off about this country sometimes, it's still the best country in the world. I would feel ashame if I left the U.S. for another country.
As much as I get pissed off about this country sometimes, it's still the best country in the world. I would feel ashame if I left the U.S. for another country.
A government like the one in the US can only last for so long because over time people slowly begin to elect those that will give them more money for less work.
It is a viscous cycle and it slowly kills the country from the inside as eventually there is more money being paid than there is work being done.
It is a viscous cycle and it slowly kills the country from the inside as eventually there is more money being paid than there is work being done.
But Obama is cool. The man has swag.
I suppose, but the issue with that is more money is simply going to the rich while everyone else is getting less, no? You can pull the entitlement card, and some will surely attempt to game the system, but a reason we have massive unemployment benefit extensions is due to the difficulty of rebounding after being fired for a lot of people, because the sectors they worked in simply closed up shop in a lot of places in the country.
I agree the rich have totally screwed the country and that needs to change. We can't continue to let them elect people who only enact changes to benefit them.
What do you mean by the first sentence?
But yeah, I'm in the same boat as you with everything else you described, too. Of course, it's not really possible to "guarantee" anything, but I think it's possible to make reasonable guarantees, and it's certainly possible to look around and keep evaluating the way things are going in this country and in others and to make an educated guess about which is the best to bet on as a good place to live and raise kids years and decades into the future.
So, I keep evaluating it all the time. I don't like the way this country is right now with healthcare and education, but who knows, maybe it'll change for the better in 10-15 years. If not, I might have to try and go elsewhere. Or some opportunity may appear to change the situation for the better. Gotta keep your mind open.
I'm more (mad?) About the euro and Spain Greece and Italy, more so then over here. Were not even at the bottom of our recession and the bottom is about to be extended farther downward after Greece defaults and drops out of the euro, with Spain following and eventually Italy. Whole economy is about to get a whole lot worse 
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
Damn you Obama!!!
Fusion Pizza
Member
We've taken bread and circus to crazy levels.
So am I but I totally disagree with you. You have to look beyond yourself, see the bigger picture, and then consider how it impacts you. You say you're more successful than you've ever been, but do you realize how much more successful you'd be in a healthy economic climate? That's a self centered point of view but I'm using it to illustrate what I'm trying to get across - that your individual position is not indicative of the situation as a whole. Especially when you consider that on our current course the bottom is going to fall out from underneath all of us except those who are essentially at the high end of the top 1%.
While I'm all for social programs to help those in need and heavier taxation on high earners (or closing of loopholes that prevent taxes from getting paid), I can't be that mad about distribution of wealth. Besides taking money out of someone's pocket and placing it in someone else's what really are you going to do about it.
There is always gonna be a widening gap as the previously successful get more successful, and the less fortunate want to pretend they are more fortunate and extend beyond their means. People just need to be smarter IMO. While the banks fucked up royally by extending out bad loans, people didn't have to take them. People often make crappy decisions that lead to their own demise, and then get sad when someone else makes better decisions that lead to more money.
There is always gonna be a widening gap as the previously successful get more successful, and the less fortunate want to pretend they are more fortunate and extend beyond their means. People just need to be smarter IMO. While the banks fucked up royally by extending out bad loans, people didn't have to take them. People often make crappy decisions that lead to their own demise, and then get sad when someone else makes better decisions that lead to more money.
The people who should get mad over this don't even have internet access, and a good proportion of them can't even read it. That's not a criticism of them -- it's an example of how effective the corporate control of our country has been at disenfranchising a huge swathe of American people.
It's well-established that the area worst for Obama in terms of support is Appalachia. You might think this is because they're the worst off, or possibly because they're super racist -- either has some backing. But here's a thing from The New Republic:
The New Republic said:
The fact that there are entire demographics, covering large parts of the country, that just choose not to vote in Presidential elections, should clarify to you just how unrepresentative our government is becoming. And, as the voter roll purges and voter ID laws should exemplify, don't think it's accidental.
There's an interesting book (that I haven't fully read) on this growth of non-voters in the US. It's written by a Canadian named Michael Adams, so it comes at the subject from that perspective, but the research he does shows that there's a very dangerous increase of people in the US who feel disconnected from and have no interest in participating in civil society. While we're all so concerned with the right vs. the left here, the real issue of total disengagement and increasing apathy of large swaths of the population is building up underneath, and presumably will suddenly blindside us all one day with bad consequences.
The book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143014234/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Wasn't income inequality horrible in the early 1900's, then improved during the mid 1900's to the 80's, when it began to decline once again?
I really loathe the idea of the government "Stealing" money from "hardworking Americans" Hard work does not guarantee success, connections do. There are plenty of poor people who work two hard, menial jobs, who work harder than some office drone who sits in a chair all day. Not to fetishize low-income jobs, but they are much more mentally and emotionally draini ng than what the better-off among us deal with.
One large, looming issue is when people become obsolete for jobs. It's already hit some areas, like clerical work, which has beern replaced by computers and a smaller team, but wat happens when the change reaches o ther sectors, like advanced manufacturing, technical design, and finance. It's always cheaper to have a computer do something rather than pay a human.
Also, at a cetain point, all things equal, two people with the same degree and similar work experience, the one with the personal connections will get the job the vast majority of the time.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Oh its definitely a problem. I blame part of it on the increasing rhetoric that casts the government as the "other". We've lost sight of the fact that the government is an institution formed from us and its supposed to be for our benefit. That the whole reason for its existence is to do good things for us.
They still pay sales taxes, gasoline taxes, taxes on utilities, property taxes if they own homes, taxes on vehicle registration, etc.
James Madison was a liberterian though. Originally, the idea was the less government the better. maybe that worked better back in the 1800s when america was like a episode of little house on the prarie and before the industrial revolution really took affect.
They pay it by buying stuff. Canada has VAT, right?
PwnCakes193
Member
I would be worried more about why we feel like we have to live this way. Get the companies that are marketing to kids or worse, and learn to stop materialism at it's source.
I really do hate when people just latch onto one sentence of an entire post and take it out of context. I do my part to help the unfortunate, with time, food, and finance. I make a very good salary, but I know full well the situation we are in is dire. Thinking the "boogeymen" are fictional is hilarious when we just had a financial meltdown due to people buying and selling 700 trillion dollars that didn't exist. Only to cripple the worlds economy. Being purely selfish, and they were all bailed out for doing so. So spare me the notion that I'm getting a free pass doing anything.
I admire your attitude to buy locally, however no, your personal economics is one part of the problem, and right now, a minuscule part. The cycle still goes. The demand is there for a better life, the "American Dream", and this equates to capitalism as tangible goods. Bigger homes, Brand Loyalty, and utterly useless electronics that are built to fail instead of longevity. We are wasting every single resource we have, literally. These problems are all very real, and very realistic. The worst part about this dream, is that it creates people like CommonSense. The American Dream, and success, is very selfish. As you saw. No one thinks about anyone around them, and that effect pours down to the very products they buy, and the earth that they live on. No one cares, and hasn't cared, that they've been buying products of slave labor for centuries. You have pockets now, like yourself, that are trying to right this wrong. Bravo to that! Its just one of the myriad of issues we have right now.
The system is broken. The world we are in, the status quo, values people who make more money. Your mom and pop store will eventually be purchased by another company, with cut throat practices to make the cheapest dollar they can, and that will make them irrelevant. That is if they are making any significant earnings.
Every bit helps, I agree. But to have a serious discussion, we can't mudsling, or assume other members motives. You are separating yourself from me claiming that you're doing your part, and what am I doing. Even if I was literally doing nothing, it still makes no difference about the ship sinking. You are setup to think that changing your spending habits, will do anything. We are locked into the system. And that is the problem. In effect, you're just pouring your money directly back into the problematic system. The location of goods isn't the problem I'm afraid, the taxes still pay for war economies, and bailouts.
And the larger issue is really that we are collectively selfish, as mentioned above. We don't try to cure the worlds hunger issues, which we could easily do. We don't try to help out the record number of homeless teens here in America. There is no money to be made in it.
I think this is such a large issue, and the finance is just really one part of it.
M3Freak
Banned
There is no such thing, for fucks sake. No human on this planet is able to achieve jack shit without help from others - no one. EVERYONE enjoys what they have because of the blood, sweat and tears of others before them.
The rich depend the MOST on society, NOT the least. Think about it.
Fucking bootstraps. More like fucking stupid.
We honestly need to make a thread of people that want to discuss the problem, and form solutions, and some how prohibit bootstrappers from it. Its bullshit. I make a good amount, and am comfortable. But there are severe problems right now, and everyone needs to help eachother out, because we can.
PwnCakes193
Member
I feel like the best way to describe this feeling by comparing it to an example now.
10-20 years ago if you asked your neighbor for sugar, paper, eggs, etc. you would probably get the items. It would also be your duty to repay them, which most did.
Nowadays if you ask your neighbor for something, they shun you and shut the door in your face. See the difference?
Alebrije
Member
The "american dream" has become an "american illusion". I share the idea that of you want to be rich you have to work for it , but every year is more difficult to have a successful small business in a market when big corporations have better supply chain and can kill you with a price war on a few months.
Yes U.S. is a great place to live an work , but to work for others instead in your own business.
Yes U.S. is a great place to live an work , but to work for others instead in your own business.
TransTrender
Gold Member
That and the government mandated dust bowl that killed agriculture in the central valley, which in turn brought down the entire valley economy.
DERP
Yes. It's a 5% federal tax on all goods and services. It used to be 7% before the conservatives took over.
Buddha Beam
Banned
Way I see it is, unless Obama goes full tilt boogie to the left in his second term, the only recourse left is violence. The rioting and angry mobs kind of violence. I don't think we're anywhere close to being able to go to where things have in Syria and the like.
It'll come before 2020, in all likelihood. Americans have been voting for revolution in every election since 2006. They only have gotten more of the same and worse in many respects. Violence is typically what occurs when democracy and voting fail.
Oh well.
It'll come before 2020, in all likelihood. Americans have been voting for revolution in every election since 2006. They only have gotten more of the same and worse in many respects. Violence is typically what occurs when democracy and voting fail.
Oh well.
You must have meant 2120. Cause shit will have to be way worse for the shit you are talking about.,
ClassyPenguin
Banned
I'm more mad at the lack of universal healthcare, gay and womens rights. Also at the Right shift in politics, especially in social but also in economic polices. We have ignored everything that we learned from the Great Depression.
blame space
Banned
i just wish socialism wasn't so evil
cartoon_soldier
Member
What are YOU going to do about it?
bone_and_sinew
breaking down barriers in gratuitous nudity
The French had a way of dealing with this, involving guillotines and whatnot.
kame-sennin
Member
Who will they vote for? The democrats are funded by the same banks that the republicans are.
No he didn't, his argument is moronic. He wants OWS to become the next Tea Party. What he doesn't understand is that the Tea Party achieved success because they were backed by corporate America. They could win elections and gain support in Congress because they had financial backing from the people who put us in this mess in the first place. OWS is a direct challenge to the oligarchic power structure. They will never receive the funding necessary to compete electorally in our corrupt system. They would be instantly marginalized if the become part of the corporate controlled democrat party. Maher is suggesting OWS pour all of its energy into a dead system. Maher's problem is that he, like many Americans, thinks all political activism happens electorally. He doesn't understand the effectiveness of protest and civil disobedience - not over a few months, but over years.
Honestly, I think Romney and more republicans getting in would be a lot worse than more Obama. If we can't make things better with voting (as you see it) can we at least keep it from getting worse?
And I do kinda agree with Maher. OWS has been sending out a message that shit is broken, which is good, but they should also be calling for people to be more politically active. There should be two plans of attack with this thing.
Think radically, act incrementally. Violent revolutions are typically more effective in the threat than the execution.
Leatherface
Member
I still believe if you put forth the effort, there are rewards and bright futures to be had. These stats are depressing but not an excuse to give up or complain about it while not putting in the effort. Opportunities are not as abundant as they were in the past, no doubt about it, but I certainly see plenty of complainers every single day that contribute nothing, expect everything and blame the world. These are the people that ruin things for everyone else. In the end though, that doesn't change the fact that there has been a massive shift in how our economy operates over the years for one reason or another. Our middle class is shrinking fast, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. This is FACT. There is something fundamentally wrong with this picture and it should NOT be ignored. This shouldn't be a pissing match. This is a topic that should make us all question things and take a closer look at how we got to this point so we can help change things, hopefully for the better, for future generations.
I like all the anecdotal stories about people succeeding and the conclusion that it's not that bad if you are willing to work for it. Technomancer has it right that it is all about probability, not possibility. Even in the poorest of the developing countries a handful of people find a way to succeed (and sometimes even gain considerable wealth).
Also, why would Americans (or any well off country) compare their quality of life to the people in disadvantaged countries? Yes, life could be worse, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the quality of life in your country is better than it was 5/10/20 years ago. If not, than there are issues. It might not be possible to see continual betterment of life in a country indefinitely, but that should at least be the goal. I don't want to live in a Canada that is worse than it was in 1992 (hypothetically) just because it happens to still be better than life in India or China in 2012. Why should I be happy with a country that is worse for my generation or my children's generation than it was for my parents and grandparents' generation?
There are a lot of people on this forum that have a lot more knowledge about the world economy and the workings of government than I do. But it is pretty apparent that the job market sucks when I see 60 people lined up outside of a Starbucks for job interviews. Especially when half of the people are 30+ years old.
Here is a long personal story that I think illustrates how bad the job market is in areas right now, and why it is hard to get a job or even a call back:
Last year I worked as an area supervisor for the Canadian census. I was going back to school in 8 months to get my teaching certification. I had been previously working as a biologist on contract, but even with the current horrible market for education jobs, it offered more (stable) employment opportunities than my previous field (ecology and conservation biology). It also helps the job search to have more qualifications. Anyhow, I had 8 months to kill, and the census was offering employment for about the same time frame. The economy was bad, but I figured with 300 jobs in my county (based on 33k jobs the census was hiring for across Canada), I would get a lower level job even if I didn't get a supervising position. The supervising position paid a little over $16/hr plus $0.55/km for the non-trivial amount of driving I had to do with my own vehicle. This is a pretty good but not spectacular job. With the mileage (200-400km a week) you were looking at $600-700 a week take home depending on the week. I got called back to write a test, and then an interview as I expected I would. A week later I was called back with a job offer. At the time I didn't think much of it. I had a masters' degree, and 10 years of varying job experience, so it shouldn't be too hard to get what amounted to an average paying job in my city. After I was hired I found out how lucky I actually was. First, at 29 I was the youngest person they hired as a supervisor by 15 years. Most of the others were also university educated. Those who weren't had worked as supervisors for 10-20 years at local factories that had closed down when they automotive industry started to decline in our area. Most of these people were making $30/hr or more previously. Later when I was given access to Statistics Canada's census recruitment system, I saw that over 800 people had applied for my position (which ended up hiring 8 people including myself).
As a supervisor in charge my my census area (about 10 000 households), I went on to hire the people who worked for me. For an unskilled position paying $1.50/hr over minimum wage, we had about 600 applicants for 15 positions. First off, it is pretty nuts that people from more than 1 in 20 households were applying for a single pool of low paying jobs when we only need 1 person per 650+ households. Secondly, one person (me) can't possibly test and interview 600 people in the two weeks I had available when hiring was just one of several duties I had. Calling back an applicant to set up a testing session took 5-10 minutes. Hosting a testing session for 20 people took 3 hours by the time I set up, administered the test, and traveled to and from the location. A phone interview took 30 minutes per person. I also had to score the test and interviews, write my comments, and enter the information into a recruitment software. This meant that maybe 20% of applicants even got a callback with an invitation to write the test. These people were selected at random. Of the people who were tested, maybe 65% met our minimum and qualified for an interview. Once I had interviewed 3 people per position that were considered qualified, I stopped making calls. Of those 600 people who applied, 120 or so got a test, 60 people got interviews and only 15 people got a job. If you were one of the unlucky 80%, your application wasn't even looked at.
Theoretically the best people should have been hired, but with so many people looking for work it is not economically feasible to test and qualify everyone. People are desperate for work. We can ignore 80% of the applicants and still have an abundance of qualified people. Furthermore, almost everyone I hired would have traditionally been over qualified for the job based on the pay we were offering and their experience/education. At least the Census system was set up in a way that nepotism was minimized. No one I knew had any connection to me.
I am sure that this is the case in a lot of areas (especially for other jobs in my area). Employers are swimming in job applications. Low paying, no experience jobs are getting 10-50 applications per opening. If you are in a professional field it is probably more like 100-500 applications. Even if you are hard working, and well above average compared to your peers in your field, it is hard to find work. Unless you know someone it really comes down to luck. Kosmo is sort of right that your luck increases as you apply to more and more places. It does help to apply to each and every job you are qualified for. However, finding a basic job that actually provides a moderately comfortable lifestyle shouldn't be a lottery. It wasn't all that long ago that these basic jobs that people were struggling to get were abundant.
Also, why would Americans (or any well off country) compare their quality of life to the people in disadvantaged countries? Yes, life could be worse, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the quality of life in your country is better than it was 5/10/20 years ago. If not, than there are issues. It might not be possible to see continual betterment of life in a country indefinitely, but that should at least be the goal. I don't want to live in a Canada that is worse than it was in 1992 (hypothetically) just because it happens to still be better than life in India or China in 2012. Why should I be happy with a country that is worse for my generation or my children's generation than it was for my parents and grandparents' generation?
There are a lot of people on this forum that have a lot more knowledge about the world economy and the workings of government than I do. But it is pretty apparent that the job market sucks when I see 60 people lined up outside of a Starbucks for job interviews. Especially when half of the people are 30+ years old.
Here is a long personal story that I think illustrates how bad the job market is in areas right now, and why it is hard to get a job or even a call back:
Last year I worked as an area supervisor for the Canadian census. I was going back to school in 8 months to get my teaching certification. I had been previously working as a biologist on contract, but even with the current horrible market for education jobs, it offered more (stable) employment opportunities than my previous field (ecology and conservation biology). It also helps the job search to have more qualifications. Anyhow, I had 8 months to kill, and the census was offering employment for about the same time frame. The economy was bad, but I figured with 300 jobs in my county (based on 33k jobs the census was hiring for across Canada), I would get a lower level job even if I didn't get a supervising position. The supervising position paid a little over $16/hr plus $0.55/km for the non-trivial amount of driving I had to do with my own vehicle. This is a pretty good but not spectacular job. With the mileage (200-400km a week) you were looking at $600-700 a week take home depending on the week. I got called back to write a test, and then an interview as I expected I would. A week later I was called back with a job offer. At the time I didn't think much of it. I had a masters' degree, and 10 years of varying job experience, so it shouldn't be too hard to get what amounted to an average paying job in my city. After I was hired I found out how lucky I actually was. First, at 29 I was the youngest person they hired as a supervisor by 15 years. Most of the others were also university educated. Those who weren't had worked as supervisors for 10-20 years at local factories that had closed down when they automotive industry started to decline in our area. Most of these people were making $30/hr or more previously. Later when I was given access to Statistics Canada's census recruitment system, I saw that over 800 people had applied for my position (which ended up hiring 8 people including myself).
As a supervisor in charge my my census area (about 10 000 households), I went on to hire the people who worked for me. For an unskilled position paying $1.50/hr over minimum wage, we had about 600 applicants for 15 positions. First off, it is pretty nuts that people from more than 1 in 20 households were applying for a single pool of low paying jobs when we only need 1 person per 650+ households. Secondly, one person (me) can't possibly test and interview 600 people in the two weeks I had available when hiring was just one of several duties I had. Calling back an applicant to set up a testing session took 5-10 minutes. Hosting a testing session for 20 people took 3 hours by the time I set up, administered the test, and traveled to and from the location. A phone interview took 30 minutes per person. I also had to score the test and interviews, write my comments, and enter the information into a recruitment software. This meant that maybe 20% of applicants even got a callback with an invitation to write the test. These people were selected at random. Of the people who were tested, maybe 65% met our minimum and qualified for an interview. Once I had interviewed 3 people per position that were considered qualified, I stopped making calls. Of those 600 people who applied, 120 or so got a test, 60 people got interviews and only 15 people got a job. If you were one of the unlucky 80%, your application wasn't even looked at.
Theoretically the best people should have been hired, but with so many people looking for work it is not economically feasible to test and qualify everyone. People are desperate for work. We can ignore 80% of the applicants and still have an abundance of qualified people. Furthermore, almost everyone I hired would have traditionally been over qualified for the job based on the pay we were offering and their experience/education. At least the Census system was set up in a way that nepotism was minimized. No one I knew had any connection to me.
I am sure that this is the case in a lot of areas (especially for other jobs in my area). Employers are swimming in job applications. Low paying, no experience jobs are getting 10-50 applications per opening. If you are in a professional field it is probably more like 100-500 applications. Even if you are hard working, and well above average compared to your peers in your field, it is hard to find work. Unless you know someone it really comes down to luck. Kosmo is sort of right that your luck increases as you apply to more and more places. It does help to apply to each and every job you are qualified for. However, finding a basic job that actually provides a moderately comfortable lifestyle shouldn't be a lottery. It wasn't all that long ago that these basic jobs that people were struggling to get were abundant.
No, they really aren't. They're pains in the ass, maybe (although charity is a virtue), but the idea that America's problems are caused by poorer people who don't work hard enough is crazy. Literally millions of Americans work very hard every day, with no meaningful chance of success, while large corporations reap the fruits of their labor, and use their riches to ensure that they'll continue to do so. Those are the people who ruin things for everybody else.
RSLAEV
Member
I'm not so much upset about not being able to ever buy a home or fancy internet toys as much as I am about the erosion of our social safety net, the attacks on unions, the assault on education, the stripping away of job opportunities, the blatant theft and cronyism that we see in politics, and worst of all the seemingly endless mass of idiots who are somehow able to ignore all of this decay and always chime in to say that everything is fine alls you need to do IS GRAB THAT MOTHERFUCKING BOOTSTRAP AND PULLNADJKNKJFJB
Also speaking of the American Dream: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q <-George Carlin-never get tired of this one
kame-sennin
Member
No, we can't. Not by voting. The financial crisis was caused by the deregulation of Wall Street. This gets talked about all the time, but it's rare that anyone brings up who was actually responsible. Was it Reagan, or Bush I, or W? No. It was Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton deregulated Wall Street under the premise that Wall Street bankers could "regulate themselves". Bill Clinton decimated American labor. Bill Clinton hobbled welfare. These were arguably the greatest blows to the middle class, and they were done by a democrat. You can not stop neolibralism - the philosophy that pushes for deregulation and the destruction of the social safety net - by voting for democrats. It's just factually untrue. The democrats sold themselves to corporate America in the 1980's in order to compete with the republicans in fund raising. The electoral game is over, we lost. Obama has shown this to be true. He's refused to prosecute Wall Street criminals, and he's done everything that he possibly could to ensure that corporate malfeasance continues.
Protesting is political activism, and it is more effective than voting democrat. Let's not forget that OWS changed the narrative from the "debt crisis" to the severity of income inequality in just a few months. There is so much more that needs to be done, but people need to understand that real change can take years.
TransTrender
Gold Member
So by nuking the region, who did it help?
Corporate farmers? They're still rich. They have options, they have mobility. They are fine.
The politicians? They're fine. They have sweet life long pensions and nearly free healthcare.
The working class? They got screwed. Jobs are gone. Economy is dead. No options, no mobility.
The state? They got screwed. Lost income taxes, business taxes. Have to pay out for all the newly unemployed.
So instead of fixing the problem it looks like things are worse.
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
The whole 'bootstraps' and 'there are plenty of chances' stuff reminded me of an old quote:
"It's like getting 100 starving homeless in a shelter and tossing a can of food in so they can fight for it, and then telling the 99 losers how they all had a fair, equal shot and should have tried harder, so the losing homeless wont think to ask why is there is only 1 can of food for 100 of them."
-someone on gaf
"It's like getting 100 starving homeless in a shelter and tossing a can of food in so they can fight for it, and then telling the 99 losers how they all had a fair, equal shot and should have tried harder, so the losing homeless wont think to ask why is there is only 1 can of food for 100 of them."
-someone on gaf
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Misleading thread title. I'm not mad at all.
kame-sennin
Member
Indeed. It's amazing that people ignore this.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Leatherface
Member
I think my point came across wrong. I wasn't trying to insinuate that this is a problem with any particular social class. I think this is more of a cultural issue, where people just expect more in general. It's much harder to argue and raise our pitch forks to fight the man when a huge portion of our society these days simply doesn't give a shit. We expect to much and give too little.
- Status