We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
If you ever want to consider how committed our society is to the foundational lie that life must be earned, and those who fail to earn it must die, consider that the proposition “giving everyone money to spend would be bad for the economy” is widely accepted as truth.
A new study found that giving low-income workers money upfront in their work period helped alleviate the mental burden of their financial problems and allowed them to be more productive \u2014 echoing other findings on the psychological impacts of poverty.https://t.co/zdxItTLDLZ
— NPR (@NPR) February 3, 2021
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example. https://t.co/Ax6Av9J5vb
Charity isn't primarily an act.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) November 10, 2019
Before the act comes an alignment.
Charity is the natural fruit of a deep alignment with the virtue of generosity.
It sure shouldn't be a delivery mechanism for one's own beliefs about worthiness.
Which is why wealthy people like means testing.
https://t.co/bgLKviRjVq
Whenever someone proposes a means-testing solution, it's an indication they've internalized the lie, foundational to the United States, that some people deserve life and others don't.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) December 18, 2020
It's an expensive lie.
As long as people go on believing the lie, it benefits them even if it targets them.
But if you want to spend money trying to administrate it away from the "undeserving" they're happy to exploit it.
These are all expensive lies. https://t.co/WPixtkxACi
To be clear, this lie\u2014that we can't afford to house the houseless\u2014is an *expensive* lie. Not just the considerable moral cost of living in a heartless society: cash on the barrel.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) December 18, 2019
We believe this expensive lie because we believe a deeper lie: that life is something earned.
Which benefits those who benefit from the lie. https://t.co/ZhU0Y3fhwT
UPDATE: Some senior Dems are looking at lowering threshold on stimulus payments so they start phasing out above $50K for single taxpayers; $75K for heads of households; & $100K for married couples
— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) February 2, 2021
Stressing here: Talks fluid, conversations are ongoinghttps://t.co/0lZ8MKuqbt
Here we see one of the most malicious servants of greed ever born, using our desire to see help go only to the deserving, in order to prevent any help from going to anybody at all. https://t.co/8mM67pXpj1
JUST IN: Sen. Mitch McConnell blasts #CASHAct, refutes Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Our colleague from Vermont is dead wrong on this...\xa0Borrowing from our grandkids to do socialism for rich people is a terrible way to get help to families\xa0who actually need it." pic.twitter.com/k6QfgDdNxq
— The Hill (@thehill) December 31, 2020
It's because he knows that as long as we stay in a framework where some deserve and others don't, money will go to the wealthy either way.
https://t.co/359PyMEgzl
The Democratic party has an obsession with making sure that programs don't help people who "don't need it." This creates hurdles that actually exclude people who need it.
— Lee J. Carter (@carterforva) December 30, 2020
The better way to implement a program is to make it universal, then claw it back from the rich via taxes.
He's not standing up for unemployed people. He's defending the lie that life is for the deserving. https://t.co/iHXbGYqb6Q
Trying to figure out how anyone justifies payments to over 100 million people that have *not* lost their job?
— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) December 19, 2020
Focus our taxpayer dollar funded relief on the unemployed & those with their hours cut, not the fully employed just working from home all year.https://t.co/OvPXzzKQuY
More from A.R. Moxon
Observe: the lie that "government" is a monolithic entity, from which we are somehow separate.
Government is how we organize, manage and maintain our society, but to acknowledge that is to acknowledge society, and one's responsibility to organize, manage, and maintain it.
Government didn't close churches. Churches closed because people with something more than a childishly selfish view of the world understood their responsibility to the shared life of a society, and government is how that understanding was operationalized and delivered.
Nor does government militarize police. The police is militarized because people with a fearful, hateful or selfish view of the world understand a militarized police will operationalize & deliver that fear, hate, and greed through the mechanism of government.
Government is *us*.
Those who now align with a party actively working to dissolve and demolish democracy in our country do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Democracy allows people they fear and hate to be government with them.
So they hate democracy, and government.
People who align with a party standing in the way of any solution, any maintenance, any governance, do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Better to die of sickness, disease, and neglect than allow those they hate and fear to be government with them.
Government is how we organize, manage and maintain our society, but to acknowledge that is to acknowledge society, and one's responsibility to organize, manage, and maintain it.
#COVID19 didn\u2019t close churches. Government did.
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) December 28, 2020
Government didn't close churches. Churches closed because people with something more than a childishly selfish view of the world understood their responsibility to the shared life of a society, and government is how that understanding was operationalized and delivered.
Nor does government militarize police. The police is militarized because people with a fearful, hateful or selfish view of the world understand a militarized police will operationalize & deliver that fear, hate, and greed through the mechanism of government.
Government is *us*.
Those who now align with a party actively working to dissolve and demolish democracy in our country do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Democracy allows people they fear and hate to be government with them.
So they hate democracy, and government.
People who align with a party standing in the way of any solution, any maintenance, any governance, do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Better to die of sickness, disease, and neglect than allow those they hate and fear to be government with them.
Pundits: The fact that Ossoff and Warnock are unlikely to both win their elections means Joe Biden needs to court Republican votes rather than push a much-needed progressive agenda
*Ossoff and Warnock win handily*
Pundits: Ah. Nevertheless,
The only way political reporting in this country makes sense is if you understand that the almost universal, almost subconscious default assumption: that conservative white people are the protagonists of any story that's being told, no matter the facts of the story.
Just do the obvious and necessary good things and let the horrid evil people who hate good things squeal and cry about it forever.
I really need Democrats who will state the clear and obvious truth, which is that Republicans are our enemies, because they insist on attacking the very idea of a shared society and are more than happy to use violence to do it, which is the very definition of an enemy.
You can't make people who want to kill you not be your enemies even if you wish they'd be your friend.
They can stop trying to kill you, but until that happens they are your enemy, and acknowledging that fact isn't what makes that fact true.
*Ossoff and Warnock win handily*
Pundits: Ah. Nevertheless,
Congressional Republicans balk at Joe Biden\u2019s $1.9 trillion relief plan, complicating push for quick passage https://t.co/npXogXvBHM
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 15, 2021
The only way political reporting in this country makes sense is if you understand that the almost universal, almost subconscious default assumption: that conservative white people are the protagonists of any story that's being told, no matter the facts of the story.
Just do the obvious and necessary good things and let the horrid evil people who hate good things squeal and cry about it forever.
I really need Democrats who will state the clear and obvious truth, which is that Republicans are our enemies, because they insist on attacking the very idea of a shared society and are more than happy to use violence to do it, which is the very definition of an enemy.
You can't make people who want to kill you not be your enemies even if you wish they'd be your friend.
They can stop trying to kill you, but until that happens they are your enemy, and acknowledging that fact isn't what makes that fact true.
People have wondered why I have spent 3 days mostly pushing back on this idea that "defund the police" is bad marketing.
The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.
It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.
There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.
But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.
The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.
Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.
And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.
There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.
They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.
The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.
Which they intend to misconstrue.
The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.
It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.
There\u2019s a magic trick that\u2019s going to get played on us every day during the 2020 election cycle. It\u2019s a fairly simple trick, once you see it.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) February 17, 2019
I\u2019d like to talk about leadership and governance.
And the compass, the navigation, the travel, and the corrections.
(thread)
There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.
But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.
The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.
Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.
And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.
There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.
They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.
The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.
Which they intend to misconstrue.
More from Society
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
Fake chats claiming to be from the Irish African community are being disseminated by the far right in order to suggest that violence is imminent from #BLM supporters. This is straight out of the QAnon and Proud Boys playbook. Spread the word. Protest safely. #georgenkencho
There is co-ordination across the far right in Ireland now to stir both left and right in the hopes of creating a race war. Think critically! Fascists see the tragic killing of #georgenkencho, the grief of his community and pending investigation as a flashpoint for action.
Across Telegram, Twitter and Facebook disinformation is being peddled on the back of these tragic events. From false photographs to the tactics ofwhite supremacy, the far right is clumsily trying to drive hate against minority groups and figureheads.
Declan Ganley’s Burkean group and the incel wing of National Party (Gearóid Murphy, Mick O’Keeffe & Co.) as well as all the usuals are concerted in their efforts to demonstrate their white supremacist cred. The quiet parts are today being said out loud.
The best thing you can do is challenge disinformation and report posts where engagement isn’t appropriate. Many of these are blatantly racist posts designed to drive recruitment to NP and other Nationalist groups. By all means protest but stay safe.
There is co-ordination across the far right in Ireland now to stir both left and right in the hopes of creating a race war. Think critically! Fascists see the tragic killing of #georgenkencho, the grief of his community and pending investigation as a flashpoint for action.
Across Telegram, Twitter and Facebook disinformation is being peddled on the back of these tragic events. From false photographs to the tactics ofwhite supremacy, the far right is clumsily trying to drive hate against minority groups and figureheads.
Be aware, the images the #farright are sharing in the hopes of starting a race war, are not of the SPAR employee that was punched. They\u2019re older photos of a Everton fan. Be aware of the information you\u2019re sharing and that it may be false. Always #factcheck #GeorgeNkencho pic.twitter.com/4c9w4CMk5h
— antifa.drone (@antifa_drone) December 31, 2020
Declan Ganley’s Burkean group and the incel wing of National Party (Gearóid Murphy, Mick O’Keeffe & Co.) as well as all the usuals are concerted in their efforts to demonstrate their white supremacist cred. The quiet parts are today being said out loud.
There is a concerted effort in far-right Telegram groups to try and incite violence on street by targetting people for racist online abuse following the killing of George Nkencho
— Mark Malone (@soundmigration) January 1, 2021
This follows on and is part of a misinformation campaign to polarise communities at this time.
The best thing you can do is challenge disinformation and report posts where engagement isn’t appropriate. Many of these are blatantly racist posts designed to drive recruitment to NP and other Nationalist groups. By all means protest but stay safe.
