Liu, I've read a number of your posts here and your message is always the same: sarcasm, denigration, name calling...and damned little of substance. Please upgrade your posts to contribute to the article's message. Agree, disagree...but provide substance to the discussion.
Liu, I've read a number of your posts here and your message is always the same: sarcasm, denigration, name calling...and damned little of substance. Please upgrade your posts to contribute to the article's message. Agree, disagree...but provide substance to the discussion.
I'm not going to divert brain power to writing a lengthy reasoned response to some geriatric whose brain ossified decades ago and whose only contribution is some reductive cliche we've all heard about ninety billion times. There are multiple online cesspools where types like that can go to circle jerk. The most efficient response to that sort of "drivel" is just to dunk on them so they slink away. It's a waste of time arguing in good faith. Just put them out to pasture.
I'll give Liu some credit; she does seem to respond to substance with substance.
Hackneyed right-wing talking points, on the other hand, she definitely replies to in a denigrating manner. John Stamp implying Tara's interview with Collins is "commie drivel" is setting the bar fairly low.
Agree on the "commie drivel" crack. Perhaps some of these folks can try an upgraded and more respectful post. This topic is certainly worthy of thought.
Well, I can take a stab at upgrading. John Stamp missed the point of the article, which isn't that "poverty produces crime" (lack of decent-paying jobs creates both poverty and crime, but that's a separate issue).
The point of the article is that runaway wealth inequality starts to look pretty dystopian and oligarchic pretty quickly. There were a few decades from the 50s through the 70s where inequality was being successfully mitigated, but now inequality is regressing back to the bad old days of feudalism and mass exploitation that made Karl Marx look at society and say "we have to be able to do better than THIS".
Conservatives love to harp on what Marx got wrong (and he got a LOT wrong), but they don't like talking about the kind of society he was living in (newly capitalist and MASSIVELY inequitable), and why it led him to think capitalism was unsalvageable.
Useful comment. You and I could have some interesting discussions, Miles. And that is what I hope for here at Tara's site. Economically and politically, Tara is quite dissimilar to by business-ownership background and political inclinations. But she does aspire, I think, to providing context for debate.
Liu, I've read a number of your posts here and your message is always the same: sarcasm, denigration, name calling...and damned little of substance. Please upgrade your posts to contribute to the article's message. Agree, disagree...but provide substance to the discussion.
I'm not going to divert brain power to writing a lengthy reasoned response to some geriatric whose brain ossified decades ago and whose only contribution is some reductive cliche we've all heard about ninety billion times. There are multiple online cesspools where types like that can go to circle jerk. The most efficient response to that sort of "drivel" is just to dunk on them so they slink away. It's a waste of time arguing in good faith. Just put them out to pasture.
You can't divert what you haven't got. OTOH, I'm at least as dumb for even bothering to respond to you.
Great, you can do some gardening or spend more time with the grandkids.
:-) You're no dumber than me!
I'll give Liu some credit; she does seem to respond to substance with substance.
Hackneyed right-wing talking points, on the other hand, she definitely replies to in a denigrating manner. John Stamp implying Tara's interview with Collins is "commie drivel" is setting the bar fairly low.
Miles. Liu just clarified her contribution quality.
Agree on the "commie drivel" crack. Perhaps some of these folks can try an upgraded and more respectful post. This topic is certainly worthy of thought.
Well, I can take a stab at upgrading. John Stamp missed the point of the article, which isn't that "poverty produces crime" (lack of decent-paying jobs creates both poverty and crime, but that's a separate issue).
The point of the article is that runaway wealth inequality starts to look pretty dystopian and oligarchic pretty quickly. There were a few decades from the 50s through the 70s where inequality was being successfully mitigated, but now inequality is regressing back to the bad old days of feudalism and mass exploitation that made Karl Marx look at society and say "we have to be able to do better than THIS".
Conservatives love to harp on what Marx got wrong (and he got a LOT wrong), but they don't like talking about the kind of society he was living in (newly capitalist and MASSIVELY inequitable), and why it led him to think capitalism was unsalvageable.
Useful comment. You and I could have some interesting discussions, Miles. And that is what I hope for here at Tara's site. Economically and politically, Tara is quite dissimilar to by business-ownership background and political inclinations. But she does aspire, I think, to providing context for debate.
And yes...we have to be able to better than this.