Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Saturday June 02, @05:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the was-not-expecting-that dept.

White Americans' fear of losing their socioeconomic standing in the face of demographic change may be driving opposition to welfare programs, even though whites are major beneficiaries of government poverty assistance, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford University.

While social scientists have long posited that racial resentment fuels opposition to such anti-poverty programs as food stamps, Medicaid and Temporary Aid to Needy Families, this is the first study to show the correlation experimentally, demonstrating a causal relationship between attitudes to welfare and threatened racial status.

"With policymakers proposing cuts to the social safety net, it's important to understand the dynamics that drive the welfare backlash," said study lead author Rachel Wetts, a Ph.D. student in sociology at UC Berkeley. "This research suggests that when whites fear their status is on the decline, they increase opposition to programs intended to benefit poorer members of all racial groups."

The findings, to be published May 30 in the journal Social Forces, highlight a welfare backlash that swelled around the 2008 Great Recession and election of Barack Obama.

Notably, the study found anti-welfare sentiment to be selective insofar as threats to whites' standing led whites to oppose government assistance programs they believed largely benefit minorities, while not affecting their views of programs they thought were more likely to advantage whites.

"Our findings suggest that these threats lead whites to oppose programs they perceive as primarily benefiting racial minorities," said study senior author Robb Willer, a professor of sociology and social psychology at Stanford University.

[...] "Overall, these results suggest whites' perceptions of rising minority power and influence lead them to oppose welfare programs," Wetts said.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @05:37AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @05:37AM (#687590)

    The title of this article sounds like someone projecting -- sounds like someone that needs to be ignored to the fringes of society.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @05:43AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @05:43AM (#687591)

      "Amazing! How are you doing that!?" the man asked in amazement. In response, the little boy said nothing; magicians do not reveal their tricks, after all. Yes, the child was a magician. While the boy may have been young, he was already at the level of a professional; one might even refer to him as a prodigy. So, what was the magic trick that impressed the older man to such a degree? The answer could be found by looking at the boy's head.

      Backwards. The boy's head was fully twisted backwards, as though he were imitating an owl. It was no wonder the man was so amazed; this was quite the feat. The man congratulated the boy for his talent and then departed, never once looking back.

      For his next trick, the boy would spend the next several months rotting away and being devoured by maggots.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @05:03PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @05:03PM (#687739)

      I took a college sociology course recently. My experience was that sociology is well defined as a science (specifically, Emile Durkheim's work), but the practitioners make no effort to follow the scientific method. Social scientists want the same status as scientists, but don't behave like scientists.

      If someone were to bother to read this study (it won't be me), I imagine it will combine some scientific style data gathering with conclusions based on opinion.

      I think the idea of science based sociology is great. It could lead to improvements in life overall. But my experience taking an honest stab at it is "science" is led by political ideology.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday June 02, @10:51PM

        by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @10:51PM (#687828) Homepage Journal

        If someone were to bother to read this study (it won't be me), I imagine it will combine some scientific style data gathering with conclusions based on opinion.

        You mean kind of like an SN commenter who draws a conclusion not only without evidence and announcing their ignorance by self-righteously announcing that they won't even attempt to prove their hypothesis? You know, like you.

        Well done AC!

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @10:59PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @10:59PM (#687831)

        I mean, just look at the conclusions being drawn here; they are almost completely unknowable. How could you possibly know what the reason for a welfare backlash is? Unless you can directly read people's minds, then you'll never be able to scientifically determine whether or not they believe what they claimed to believe. This is just junk 'science'.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 02, @11:14PM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @11:14PM (#687837) Journal

          Unless you can directly read people's minds

          Say by asking them questions and they tell you what they claim to think? That's pretty direct.

          then you'll never be able to scientifically determine whether or not they believe what they claimed to believe

          Why is that relevant? Do we have a reason to believe that there is a lot of undetectable deception in this sort of thing?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @11:23PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @11:23PM (#687842)

            Say by asking them questions and they tell you what they claim to think?

            And how do you scientifically verify that their answers were truthful and correct?

            Do we have a reason to believe that there is a lot of undetectable deception in this sort of thing?

            We don't know the answer, so we can't just assume they are truthful and correct; that is deeply unscientific.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Saturday June 02, @06:26AM (38 children)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Saturday June 02, @06:26AM (#687598)

    Is it "don't give *them* anything, because they might end up with more than we have"?
    Or is it "*they* don't deserve it, *we* do"?

    Or is it just "poor people don't deserve help."?

    --
    tau = 300. Greek circles must have been weird.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Saturday June 02, @07:42AM (3 children)

      by BsAtHome (889) on Saturday June 02, @07:42AM (#687604)

      Its more of a selfish trait to human existence. Like in "If I can't have it, surely nobody else can have it". This would actually make sense as an evolutionary strategy because it would, short shortsightedly, try to eliminate competition. The actual dynamics are, of course, more complex, and the results may not be that what you intended.
      This is where the "short sighted" strategy element comes into play. It is very hard for us to look beyond our own little backyard. Even though we can see and rationalize a bigger picture than our backyard, it is very hard to act accordingly and be slightly less selfish. Evolutionary, we strive to survive, by all means possible, generally without regard to consequence. It is the rationalization that lets us become "humane".

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 02, @08:26AM

        by c0lo (156) on Saturday June 02, @08:26AM (#687610)

        Its more of a selfish trait to human existence. Like in "If I can't have it, surely nobody else can have it".

        More like "I ain't well enough until you ain't much poorer than me"

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @04:41PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @04:41PM (#687728)

        Like in "If I can't have it, surely nobody else can have it".

        It applies everywhere to everything. We salt the earth in the middle east and Africa with these phony 'color revolutions' to scare off Russian and Chinese investments to keep them from growing fat on our leftovers. Maintaining the advantage is paramount.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @10:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @10:52PM (#687829)

        This is where the "short sighted" strategy element comes into play. It is very hard for us to look beyond our own little backyard.

        I live in an apartment building in a large city and, as such, don't have a back yard you insensitive clod!

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 02, @10:23AM (29 children)

      It's "Stop taking *my* shit and giving it to motherfuckers who won't get off their asses and earn their own". You lot have damned sure heard it enough times from me and you know I don't go in for subtlety. But, hey, seeing higher ed nutjobs say "EVERYTHING IS RACISM!!!1!1!!1!ONE" isn't remotely surprising.

      --
      "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @10:49AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @10:49AM (#687640)

        Notably, the study found anti-welfare sentiment to be selective insofar as threats to whites' standing led whites to oppose government assistance programs they believed largely benefit minorities, while not affecting their views of programs they thought were more likely to advantage whites.

        "Stop taking my shit and giving it to those below me on social ladder; start taking shit from those above me on social ladder and give it to me."

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by choose another one on Saturday June 02, @11:39AM (2 children)

          by choose another one (515) on Saturday June 02, @11:39AM (#687650)

          "Stop taking my shit and giving it to those below me on social ladder; start taking shit from those above me on social ladder and give it to me."

          An equally (or more) valid conclusion is:

          "Taking some of my shit to give to those less fortunate is ok, but only if you are going to dish it out fairly, if you are going to dish it out on the basis of skin colour then **** you"

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @05:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @05:05PM (#687742)

          And if only we had a mode of progressivism that raises all boats (except, of course, the capitalist elites who have been stealing from the rest of us).

          Instead we have identity politics. Identity politics doesn't care about the bourgeoisie. Instead it tells whites and men in the working class who are struggling and objectively losing ground according to just about every economic data point (other than the "you have smartphones! how dare you complain!" crap--no, I don't have a smartphone, and even if I did, I would rather have meat on my table) that they need to fork over even more.

          Of course, identity politics hides to whom they want whites and men to fork over even more. Identity politics uses guilt tripping to con whites and men into giving up more wealth, not to people of color or women (who are in the same boat, losing ground, also would rather have meat on the table, savings in the bank, hope for the future, the ability to absorb an unexpected $400 cost without it being a major financial blow, etc than a smartphone), but to the bourgeoisie.

          So, women and people of color are never advanced. Amazingly enough, this sets the stage for more guilt tripping and psychological manipulation by the sociopathic capitalist elites.

          Is it any wonder that whites and men are fucking sick of this shit? And we're fucking sick of being told that the economic data that shows we're all getting fucked up the ass somehow doesn't apply to us because we're white or were assigned the male gender caste at birth. We're fucking sick of being blamed for women and minorities experiencing the exact same fucking thing we are because they are being robbed by the elites the same as we are!!!

          Of course this study is pushing an agenda.

          And by what divine powers there may be, I am fucking sick of it. If the pseudo-left and so-called "progressives" don't get their heads out of their asses, I have no problem switching my voting habits to the alt-right. If we can't have progressive politics and all we get is a bunch of regressive identity politics whargargl, FUCK THAT SHIT.

          I can't live like this. I am being swindled, and all anybody tells me is that because of my skin color and a letter on my birth certificate that somehow all the data that shows I'm being swindled just doesn't apply!!! Fuck it! Burn it all down!

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bobthecimmerian on Saturday June 02, @12:58PM (6 children)

        by bobthecimmerian (6834) on Saturday June 02, @12:58PM (#687658)

        But they're happy to "Take *my* shit and give it to motherfuckers who won't get off their asses and earn their own" provided the motherfuckers are white. Explain that.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @03:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @03:10PM (#687702)

          Now what?

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 02, @06:58PM (4 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @06:58PM (#687782) Journal

          Remember Uzzard's got ADHD. By his own admission he's a barely-controlled ball of rage. This is why he's always going off about other peoples' "feelz," because deep down he knows that's a good 90% of his own thought process. Projection, hypocrisy, and ignorance, the unholy trinity of the reactionary right.

          If he ever looked at the big picture with a sober, straight face, he'd see where his "shit" is going, and it's *not* going downwards...

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 03, @01:30AM (3 children)

            Well not barely. You can tell by how it never gets allowed in the driver's seat. As for them being part of my thought process... they're not thoughts and I don't act on emotion. You should try it sometime. You'll get to be actually correct on an issue instead of just feeling that you are. You'll even be able to rationally explain why you are correct.

            --
            "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 03, @03:09AM (2 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @03:09AM (#687904) Journal

              That didn't look like it was never allowed in the driver's seat. At the very least that was some hardcore backseat-driving right there...

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 03, @10:34AM (1 child)

                It's true. I do allow small amounts of amusement at stupidity through. It's intentional and has passed through rational thought though. It's given in the hope that ridicule will help those it's directed at to correct themselves.

                --
                "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
                • (Score: 2, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 03, @08:46PM

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @08:46PM (#688094) Journal

                  Hasn't seemed to work on you so far...*sigh* Oh well. When someone is as old as you and stuck in this mode of thinking, odds are good only the reaper will bring you out of it...

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 02, @01:36PM (12 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @01:36PM (#687665) Journal

        I read the article. Complete, and utter bullshit.

        For starters, the sample size is pretty small. Second, it's not clear where they found the "candidates" for their surveys, or what their social class might be. (I thought there was a link to a PDF, but I'm not finding that now.) Third, it's Berkeley.

        My attitude toward welfare has remained pretty damned consistent all through my life. No matter how far "up" or how far "down" I may have been financially, I've always felt that a man who doesn't work doesn't deserve to eat. You pay your way, or you go hungry. Women and children are another story - I'm willing to help provide for them. Men? Hungry? What are you willing to do for me? Mow my lawn? Feed my animals? Paint? Fix my car/truck/tractor/POS trailer? Want to repair my fence, maybe? Sure, I'll feed you, and give you a few bucks! Oh - you aren't willing to do ANY of that? Well, in that case, maybe I can find you a bread crust, if the wife hasn't thrown them all out to the birds.

        Race means absolutely nothing. Upward or downward trends for whites means nothing.

        This is just another "feel-good" nonsense study, to justify liberal hatred of hetero white males.

        --
        #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft #MUH_FREEZE_PEACH!!!111one
        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @03:42PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @03:42PM (#687713)

          Ugly evolution-induced human behavior issue here:

          The trouble with providing for women and children is that it encourages broken families. Why bother to resolve relationship problems? It doesn't matter. Nobody will go hungry.

          If women don't need men as providers, then they simply don't need men. There is no shortage of sperm, and a desirable supplier can be used for a day. There is no need to bother with a relationship, from her perspective at least. Children thus grow up without fathers. Fathers have a hugely positive impact on children, doing much to reduce delinquency and generally set children on the right path in life.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 02, @03:57PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @03:57PM (#687716) Journal

            Welllll, that's the theory, anyway. There is that other popular theory, that it takes a village to raise an idiot.

            --
            #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft #MUH_FREEZE_PEACH!!!111one
          • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Saturday June 02, @11:21PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @11:21PM (#687841) Journal
            The obvious rebuttal is how much of a provider will a man be who can't even be bothered to work for his own food?
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @06:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @06:31PM (#687777)

          Women who don't work deserve to go hungry too.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @11:11PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @11:11PM (#687834)

          I only agree that this study is complete garbage and outrage bait.

          Still, it's amazing how a male like yourself can be so misandrist. What a sad view you have.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 03, @12:35AM (6 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @12:35AM (#687857) Journal

            Males are expendable, you dumb shit. That's why there are something like 105 males born for every 100 females. We are excess. Females only need maybe five or ten males for every 100 females, but they produce all that excess, so the worthless males can be culled. Check your privilege - you're not as important as you seem to think you are.

            --
            #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft #MUH_FREEZE_PEACH!!!111one
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @08:02AM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @08:02AM (#687956)

              Males are expendable, you dumb shit.

              You're committing a naturalistic fallacy here. You speak in an evolutionary sense, but evolution does not determine ethics. We don't need to run our society that way.

              Maybe you think of yourself as expendable, but not every male thinks of themselves that way. Take your self-hate elsewhere.

              Check your privilege - you're not as important as you seem to think you are.

              Ultimately, nothing is important. The human race could be entirely wiped out and the universe wouldn't - and can't - care. You're making the same mistake as the idiots who refer to evolution as "evilution"; evolution is not a moral system.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 03, @09:05AM (3 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @09:05AM (#687962) Journal

                I don't give two flips for your version of ethics. Reality is, guys do stupid shit all the time, to prove how expendable we are. And, women keep on living life, in our absence. When any one of us manages to kill our self, a woman or six might notice, but they go on with life. There are few signs that they miss us.

                I observed that when my wife's father died, it upset the sisters some. None were happy, 'cause they all loved their daddy. But, life went on. When their MOTHER died, that was quite different. Each of those girls had a relationship with their mother, that Daddy was never a part of.

                Most people, I believe, are similar. Guys as well as girls. Mother is a more important part of people's lives, even if they have a great relationship with their fathers.

                Find the exceptions, and they will probably only help to prove the rule.

                Back to the bottom line: men are expendable, women are less expendable.

                --
                #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft #MUH_FREEZE_PEACH!!!111one
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:45AM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:45AM (#687982)

                  I don't give two flips for your version of ethics.

                  Rather, you don't care about ethics at all. I try not to have ridiculous double standards, but I suppose you don't care about small things like that.

                  Back to the bottom line: men are expendable, women are less expendable.

                  By whose standard? Yours, and those who think like you, of course. To intelligent people who have no interest in trying to replicate the laws of the jungle in human society because they would prefer to be better than that, such a standard is simply laughable.

                  I'm not sure what you think you're going to achieve by using anecdotes and hypothetical scenarios to rationalize speaking in absolutes.

                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 03, @01:56PM (1 child)

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @01:56PM (#688010) Journal

                    Got it - those who don't share YOUR ethics have no ethics at all. I hear what you're saying though. No one, and nothing, is more important than you are. You, personally, epitomize value in this world. There's are words for that. Hubris. Narcissism. Ostentation.

                    --
                    #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft #MUH_FREEZE_PEACH!!!111one
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:30PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:30PM (#688136)

                      No one, and nothing, is more important than you are.

                      Enough with your ridiculous straw men. So because I don't see myself as expendable and less valuable than women and children, that means I'm merely narcissistic? Then, what does that say about the women who are apparently so much more valuable than men? Are they narcissists too? I'm sorry for your self-hate, but I just don't have that issue.

                      You rely on faulty logic to reach the conclusion that men should be seen as expendable in human society. We don't need to structure our society that way.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @01:41PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @01:41PM (#688006)

              Uhh... That is stupid. Males were expendable a long long time ago. There is no science to say there ought to be 1 to 1 mapping of men and women. And YOU could be not as important as you think. *add some abusive words*

              How about you commit suicide to balance the world?

      • (Score: 4, Touché) by Whoever on Saturday June 02, @04:26PM (3 children)

        by Whoever (4524) on Saturday June 02, @04:26PM (#687722) Journal

        It's "Stop taking *my* shit and giving it to motherfuckers who won't get off their asses and earn their own".

        That's funny, coming from someone who lives in a state that receives more in Federal funding than it pays in taxes. In other words, someone whose lifestyle is subsidized by taxpayers in CA, NY, etc. (blue states plus Texas).

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @11:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @11:14PM (#687836)

          I wasn't aware that he determined the policies of his entire state. Of all the valid criticisms of TMB, you chose this?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 02, @11:26PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @11:26PM (#687843) Journal

          That's funny, coming from someone who lives in a state that receives more in Federal funding than it pays in taxes. In other words, someone whose lifestyle is subsidized by taxpayers in CA, NY, etc. (blue states plus Texas).

          A good portion of that money goes to businesses which run out of those other states. Any IT or finance money isn't going purely to Texas, for example.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 03, @01:32AM

          Oh, you think I should move up to Vermont or something? That would somehow make my view more valid than living right along side the lazy motherfuckers I don't want to pay to sit on their asses?

          --
          "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Saturday June 02, @02:10PM (1 child)

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @02:10PM (#687673)

      Its a generational confusion thing, that a lot of the 60s Civil Rights era propaganda was based on the concept that advantaging and disadvantaging groups based solely on race was very unfair. So apply that to welfare programs that boil down to forcibly take money from white people and give it to others, seems like it would violate that propaganda image from the 60s that fairness and equality under the law is important.

      Remember if we were a unified society we would have a unified non-multicultural culture. There's nothing inherently wrong with being an XYZ, and if being an XYZ means lower than white economic performance, well, live how you want to live unless the constant calls of "uncle tom" prevent you from living in your subculture the way you want to live. Although thats another issue. The problem comes about when people who were born ABCs in ABC culture and therefore make more money, are being bled dry to keep an inferior culture of XYZ afloat. Its very creationist or anti-evolutionary or anti-science. In summary there's nothing wrong with being an XYZ, but today living like an XYZ implies massive cultural inferiority, and rather than fixing that massive cultural inferiority, lets just destroy more successful group ABC to temporarily float XYZ culture a little higher, till the money and people run out.

      The critical distinction is being able to look at South Africa or Zimbabwe or the USA and see that some cultures are simply inferior, and rather than fixing or improving them we're taking the cowards way out by actively and intentionally destroying the more successful subcultures. That would require observation and judgment that a culture of low productivity and high criminality is worse than a culture of high productivity and low criminality, and some people would literally rather die than notice that, so lets just destroy the good one so we're all equal.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @06:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @06:34PM (#687779)

        I'll take propaganda over your bullshit.

        Consider me ready to burn down your "progress" by any means nessecary in pursuit of my regressive racial equality of opportunity.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 02, @02:32PM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @02:32PM (#687683) Journal

      It's' more like, "Poor people probably deserve some help, but they don't deserve a free ride."

      --
      #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft #MUH_FREEZE_PEACH!!!111one
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @06:31AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @06:31AM (#687599)

    Welfare....

    If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

    Sometimes it costs you more to work than you would receive if you just asked the government for it.

    Work? You are expected to have a place to stay, arrive freshly bathed, neat and tidy, spend your day working to make someone else rich, and end up earning just enough to pay rent. And you have to file taxes, which by itself can run into the hundreds of dollars if you don't understand the tax reporting requirements very well and have to hire help.

    Welfare? Free camping. Meals for the Homeless/Church Kitchens, free medical, food stamps, and still a lot of people who will give you money, despite your stealing their stuff when their back is turned.

    No wonder a lot of people are deprecating to a more relaxed lifestyle. I know in my situation, I have passed up "advancement" because I know I won't be allowed to keep my earnings, unless I can get paid enough to get into the tax havens the one-percenters have had Congress create for them.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Saturday June 02, @08:23PM (2 children)

      by Magic Oddball (3847) on Saturday June 02, @08:23PM (#687799)

      One problem with that logic: the vast majority of welfare benefits are only available to pregnant women and children (through their parents), each child is limited to 60 months total in a lifetime, and the adults must fulfill fairly strict work/training requirements.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @11:16PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @11:16PM (#687838)

        Which is quite unjust. Basic Income is sounding better every day.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 03, @01:38AM

          Explain please how any redistribution of wealth is in any way "just". Start from the premise that equality of outcome rather than opportunity is utter communist bullshit and you might present an interesting argument.

          --
          "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @06:46AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @06:46AM (#687601)

    Welfare-funded [nationalreview.com] immigration [express.co.uk] and corporate hiring practices [nationalreview.com] are turning Western societies into South Africa [thenewamerican.com], and you use this as an excuse to hate white people because they are starting to become upset by it?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday June 02, @09:01AM (1 child)

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday June 02, @09:01AM (#687621) Homepage

      Exactly this. Civilized Western societies aren't afraid of immigrants, but they are afraid of lowering of their society's standards, which involves violence and unsafety. And lowering of wages, and raising of rents. All of which happens when migrants are involved.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @05:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @05:46PM (#687759)

        Knew we'd find stupid here. EF never fails to provide it.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday June 02, @07:06AM (15 children)

    by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Saturday June 02, @07:06AM (#687602)

    Math bitches, learn it, love it, live it.

    Budgetary impact differs by race, and it isn't minor.

    Over their lifetime the AVERAGE White person contributes a net $220,805 to the public coffers. Meanwhile the AVERAGE Hispanic takes $588,219 and the AVERAGE Black $751,200. Remember, these are averages. And we are told, gloatingly, by "our betters" that White people are being exterminated, rendered obsolete, soon to be a minority in what was once their own land. Some of us are smart enough to see who is about to get f*cked by math. Basically we are already paying "reparations" and it is about to get really harsh. Then when the gibs run out we will be outnumbered by people too f*cking dumb to realize Whitey simply ain't got no mo gibs for them. Or we stop this insanity now, while we still can survive it.

    And since some moron will demand it, you can read the backing stats in full sperg detail by starting at The Cost of Black America [blogspot.com] and following through to his source.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday June 02, @09:04AM (9 children)

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday June 02, @09:04AM (#687622) Homepage

      I don't believe that Blacks are to blame. I do believe that outsider meddling is, though. And by "outsiders" I mean The Jews.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 02, @10:27AM

        s/Jews/Regressives/

        --
        "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday June 02, @01:53PM (4 children)

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @01:53PM (#687668)

        The belief thing is odd, because this is a golden era of find a public supporter of the status quo, look up their wikipedia page, oh what a surprise "Personal Life" section lists which synagogue they attend, rinse and repeat.

        Its only belief in the sense of colloquially I believe in gravity, but that doesn't mean there's any serious scientific opposition, much like the theory of gravity or evolution or whatever.

        With obvious population correction factors such that X% would naturally randomly be whatever or not.

        What we really need is affirmative action in journalism, immigration policy wonks, Democratic party political leadership, etc.

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday June 02, @05:32PM (3 children)

          by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Saturday June 02, @05:32PM (#687755)

          Get on gab or look on the chans. It is a meme game to find some moron making anti-white statements, hating their "Whiteness" or lecturing "My Fellow White People", search their timeline for evidence of their Jewishness, post a composite image of both and "Every. Fucking. Time." beneath it. Bonus points if they have the blue check.

          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @07:39PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @07:39PM (#687792)

            Oh, dear, jmorris! I fear your Nana is spinning in her grave, if she knows her least favorite grandson has become anti-semantic.

            (An aside: why would anyone go onto gab? It is a den of scum and villiany, after all.)

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 02, @05:26PM (1 child)

        by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Saturday June 02, @05:26PM (#687751)

        Yea, but had I written (((our betters))) the entire thread would have been hijacked. Just going around shouting "Its the Jews!" doesn't work. They have built every Crime Stop mental defense into us to prevent going "there." You can show people the dots but they have to eventually connect them themselves, they have to actually swallow the Red Pill. Only then can you say, "Welcome to the real world, Brother." And then it on you to advise them to not just go around saying shit like "Fuck it, Nazi time!" because it is doesn't help. So many newly awakened people go a bit zany and it turns people off to the point they can't awaken others.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @11:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @11:17PM (#687839)

          Yea, but had I written (((our betters))) the entire thread would have been hijacked. Just going around shouting "Its the Jews!" doesn't work. They have built every Crime Stop mental defense into us to prevent going "there." You can show people the dots but they have to eventually connect them themselves, they have to actually swallow the Red Pill. Only then can you say, "Welcome to the real world, Brother." And then it on you to advise them to not just go around saying shit like "Fuck it, Nazi time!" because it is doesn't help. So many newly awakened people go a bit zany and it turns people off to the point they can't awaken others.

          And so you figured it out. Fat lot of good it will do you. We here at the International Jewish Conspiracy (IJC) just laugh at people like you. We control everything. The media, the police, the government, the taco trucks, the farms, the cities and all the people.

          If I chose, I could go to your house (whether you were there or not) and fuck your wife and daughters and all you could do is thank me for sharing my superior sperm. Because we *own* you.

          We at the IJC don't care if you rant and rave about it, because there's nothing you can do to change it.

                  Who controls the British crown?
                  Who keeps the metric system down?
                  We do, we do!

                  Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
                  Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
                  We do, we do!

                  Who holds back the electric car?
                  Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
                  We do, we do!

                  Who robs cavefish of their sight?
                  Who rigs every Oscar night?
                  We do!
                  We do!

          Suckers!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @05:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @05:48PM (#687762)

        Stupid is as stupid says.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Saturday June 02, @01:46PM

      by digitalaudiorock (688) on Saturday June 02, @01:46PM (#687666)

      This is +5 Insightful? He's basically just said that the majority of rich people are white. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Bobs on Saturday June 02, @02:37PM

      by Bobs (1462) on Saturday June 02, @02:37PM (#687685)

      I looked the site’s numbers. There is a lot of vagueness and lack of detail about the sources of the data and how the calculations are made. ( Talking about the single data source cited by the article above: http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-blacks-and-hispanics/ [thealternativehypothesis.org]

      If the numbers are true and accurate then he ought to be able to provide links to the source data and show his work on how the calculations were performed. Since the underlying detail is missing, I doubt the stated results.

      Hard to argue against vague claims without spending a bunch of time trying to replicate his results first, but here is a few problems I see:

      • You change this and say rich people pay most of the taxes, and most rich people are white, and many / most poor people are a net negative in terms of tax revenues. Or, more simply: The Federal Government loses $ on poor people of all races.
      • People have more value than just $, and people add economic benefit that isn’t always reflected in tax dollars.
      • We aim to tax good things less, bad things more. So lower Federal taxes does not necessarily indicate less worth. Example: Ask Donald Trump.
      • if/when poor people move up the wealth scale and pay more taxes - this analysis ignores that the same people pay more over time as they move up the income scale.
      • There is ambiguity about if/how taxes and spending from State/Local are factored in:
        • looks like May include some dollars collected by state and local, but summary says ‘Federal’
        • May/may not include $ paid by Sales tax. If so, that needs to be credited to non-wealthy using a different allocation method.
      • Looks like payroll taxes are not credited / need adjustment
      • More generally, if you ran a similar method in 1860, it would show blacks contributing nothing to taxes, yet their uncompensated labor was the foundation of the economy for multiple states. (If Fed income tax existed)
      • Then if you ran the same analysis in 1890 or 1920 it would show blacks as too poor to contribute to Federal taxes, but their under-compensated labor was still a pillar of the economy of multiple states.
      • There is a lot of inertia in going from poor and oppressed to equal opportunity. Separate but equal was still legal up until about 50 years ago.
      • If you ran a similar, flawed analysis using gender instead of race it would show females are a net drag on the economy and we would be better off if we eliminated females

      Given the obvious problems with the methodology, the lack of supporting detail, I call bunk on this.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 02, @05:02PM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @05:02PM (#687738) Journal

      Clicked the link. Didn't much like what I saw. I'm asking myself, "Is this a Stormfront site?" But I clicked through, and read the methodology. At first glance, they appear to have their shit together. I suppose that I could duplicate his methods, to see if he's pulling numbers out of his ass. Looks like a lot of work, though.

      I still don't like what I see. But, without researching his work further, it's hard to fault what the man says.

      No, I'm not expecting anyone, certainly not Gubbermint, to verify those numbers. Even if they are 100% correct, it is in nobody's interest to verify and/or make corrections to the numbers.

      --
      #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft #MUH_FREEZE_PEACH!!!111one
      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @07:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @07:42PM (#687793)

        Amazing coincidence!!!!

        I still don't like what I see. But, without researching his work further, it's hard to fault what the man says.

        I don't like what I read, when Runaway writes it. But without Runaway actually doing some reasearch, and thinking instead of just Roseanning before he types, this is not likely to change.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Saturday June 02, @08:36PM

        by unauthorized (3776) on Saturday June 02, @08:36PM (#687802)

        Is this a Stormfront site?

        Close. The alt hype are the poser children for alt right "intellectuals", but all they do is lie through omission by making the tiniest errors that pass superficial inspection and would go completely over the heads of the alt sheep. They are really good at this shtick of theirs, it's rather impressive in a way.

        This article in particular relies heavily on bad sources. Statistic Brain despite it's claims of being a "research institute" is nothing but a statistics aggregation factory with abysmal accuracy, undocumented sources and zero independent review. This blog post [blogspot.com] goes into some specifics for anyone interested.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @07:50AM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @07:50AM (#687605)

    Phys.org co-opted by Leftists.

    Remember folks, everything the Left does is a projection, and a way to divert attention from their own guilt and wrongdoings.

    Hey assholes, Whites in South America are also in fear of losing their status, along with their lives! Just like Zimbabwe beforehand, it will become total shithole within 20 years (right now it is just a shithole).

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday June 02, @08:05AM (5 children)

      by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Saturday June 02, @08:05AM (#687607)

      Most of science is SJW converged now. Why do you think it is grinding to a halt? Why do you think most of the stuff that is supposed to be hard science is no longer reproducible outside of industry research? Impossibility of SJW Convergence at work, as any organization converges toward the goals of Social Justice it finds it impossible to carry out its original mission. When we come out the other end of the Kaboom! most "science" of the last thirty or so years will need to be deleted and redone from scratch because it will the simpler path. We might get to keep the output of the purest sciences, those less attractive to SJWs like math, astronomy, particle physics.

      Silicon Valley started out pretty much Communist infested but look how far and fast they are now falling. Twitter went from "the free speech wing of the free speech movement" to the heavily censored shithole it now is in less than two years. Same for Facebook and Google. Pretty much the entire Fortune 500 is now a dead loss writeoff. New competitors will have to green field new replacements for all of it, trying to acquire any of the bones at the bankruptcy auctions will only speed the infection of the new entities with the zombie rot. You can't clean out SJW infections because they will destroy an organization themselves before allowing control to slip out of their unclean paws.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @08:21AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @08:21AM (#687608)

        I have it on good authority that jmorris is in fact on welfare. Multiple SS disability accounts, mostly for a severe case a agoraphobia that keeps him from leaving his "domicile", since reality has a well known liberal bias. And then there are the bone spurs, anal cysts, and other such disabilities that keep any patriotic super alt-right from actually serving in any service. Poor jmorris! I would suggest we take up a Soylentil fund for him, but he is already driving a brand new Cadillac, except he is to afraid to actual drive it out of the garage. Carbon Monoxide, does funny things to one's intellect. Worse if one did not have one to begin with.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday June 02, @09:14AM (2 children)

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday June 02, @09:14AM (#687624) Homepage

          Your post sucks since Hillary lost and now the Jew-run media has to double-back on their support for the racist, voter-intimidating Antifa. Yet, they are still petulant and steadfast in their beLIEfs, lets see how they hold up in the next few months.

          • (Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday June 02, @11:29AM (1 child)

            by anubi (2828) on Saturday June 02, @11:29AM (#687645) Journal

            Gee, EF, I'm gonna steal that one... beLIEfs !

            I love it!

            --
            "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
      • (Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday June 02, @09:59AM

        by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Saturday June 02, @09:59AM (#687630)

        Great comedy writing.....oh wait, you were serious.....ah well, a funny mod for thee!

        --
        The Trump Presidency, an attempt to make Nixon look respectable......
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 02, @08:44AM

      by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Saturday June 02, @08:44AM (#687617) Journal

      Phys.org just reprints university news pieces/press releases, with the exception of a few articles written by Phys.org staff. Article is from University of California - Berkeley.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @08:25AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @08:25AM (#687609)

    Great responses folks, nothing short of what ive come to expect from this article being on this site. Hopefully we get some more sanity when the rest of the world becomes active on here tomorrow.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 02, @08:34AM

      by c0lo (156) on Saturday June 02, @08:34AM (#687615)

      Hopefully we get some more sanity when the rest of the world becomes active on here tomorrow.
      Active here? On weekend?
      You know, the definition of sanity impliees a balanced life (as opposed to OCD knee-jerk reactions) - in other words, you may wait in vain.

  • (Score: 2) by inertnet on Saturday June 02, @09:34AM

    by inertnet (4071) on Saturday June 02, @09:34AM (#687626)

    TFS starts with an assumption of fear and builds more assumptions around that idea.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Saturday June 02, @12:35PM (12 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @12:35PM (#687655) Journal

    TFA didn't have the questionnaire the study participants completed, but the description of the setup screams bad design. The study authors set up the structure that way because that is the result they wanted to "prove." Let's see, let's show a bunch of white people a scenario where the country is majority white, and stable, or one where white people are an endangered species and their prosperity is slipping away. OMG! You mean the white people don't like the latter scenario?! They're racists!!!

    In other words, it's what you'd expect from a wanna-be sociology department at Berkeley, in a study designed by "woke" Millenials.

    It's devilishly difficult to fashion a survey that gets at real attitudes about race, class, ethnicity, etc because they are such hot-button topics. It's very easy to steer the answers based on the way you structure the survey, the way you phrase the questions, and so on. Careful researchers take measures like asking the same question several ways to make sure what they're seeing is a true result and not survey bias.

    So we can't take anything this study says at face value, so it's not even worth anyone's time to debate its conclusions.

    There are macro-economic trends, however, that are factual and factor into tensions over consumer confidence and identity. Free trade agreements have significantly eroded the middle class in America. Companies, manufacturing, and even white collar employment have been outsourced to markets with lower labor costs. Programs like the H1-B visas have put significant downward pressure on wages in the United States. Illegal immigration has increased competition in the American labor market, especially in jobs and roles that require less education and training. Cuts in capital gains taxes and the elimination of financial regulations have produced a situation where Wall Street investors pay less in taxes than the working stiffs who report to work 9-5. Real incomes for 99% of Americans have been on an uninterrupted 40-yr slide.

    In short, the American middle class has been squeezed left, right, center, from below, and from above. It is inevitable that they'd be angry and looking for someone to blame.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bobthecimmerian on Saturday June 02, @01:13PM (6 children)

      by bobthecimmerian (6834) on Saturday June 02, @01:13PM (#687663)

      I'm a white guy in the middle class and I am angry and I've found all of the people to blame. Hint: they're all above me in their economic class and the overwhelming majority of them have the same skin color as me.

      I really don't get the racism this country is sliding into. "Hey, a rich white guy sent my job to a poor Asian person. Fuck those penniless Asian bastards, it's all their fault!" Aren't they mad at the wrong people?

      I know some white collar job and blue collar job in my area that are flat out racist. They all have a few black people or Latino people they know that are fine, upstanding citizens and hard workers, and when the question of race comes up they'll mention those friends. But when they work with a black idiot or find out some Latino person they know was a criminal, they lump the whole race together with the person and start complaining. Of course, they don't do that with white people. They think a good white guy is just a good guy, and a bad white guy is just an asshole or a criminal, but the fact that some white guy is lazy or a rapist or whatever doesn't say anything about all of the rest of the whites in the world.

      In 1970 the average price of a new house was 7.5 times the annual earnings of a minimum wage earner. Today it's 24 times.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 02, @01:56PM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @01:56PM (#687669) Journal

        I'm with you, about ten thousand percent.

        Remember Mitt Romney? Bastard made his money selling off businesses to the Chinese. Times are tough, businesses went under, he bought them up, and shipped them to our main competition. THEN, he had the nerve to run for president? Another damned traitor, who should be stood in front of a wall, in front of an armed audience, none of whom have blanks in their weapons. Right beside both Clintons, and Al Gore.

        Yes, I know who to be angry at. It ain't the blacks, or the Asians, or the Mexicans. It's all those rich SOB's who don't think that twenty, thirty, or a hundred billion dollars is enough.

        --
        #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft #MUH_FREEZE_PEACH!!!111one
        • (Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Saturday June 02, @09:44PM (1 child)

          by bobthecimmerian (6834) on Saturday June 02, @09:44PM (#687818)

          I think we're on the same page. I will say that Trump managed to make Hillary look like a friend of the middle class, and that's no easy thing to do. But that's only in relative terms, she's still a tool of the oligarchy.

          • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Saturday June 02, @10:58PM

            by nitehawk214 (1304) on Saturday June 02, @10:58PM (#687830)

            Yep. I know it sounds like a conspiracy, but it's the rich people on the far left and far right that keep promoting this race-war shit. The leadership of both parties is filled with those same rich people.

            --
            "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Saturday June 02, @01:56PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @01:56PM (#687670)

        Hint: they're all above me in their economic class and the overwhelming majority of them have the same skin color as me.

        Via affirmative action that's actually extremely unlikely.

        Of course, they don't do that with white people.

        Yeah no one is ever anti-white, LOL.

      • (Score: 2) by slap on Saturday June 02, @04:06PM

        by slap (5764) on Saturday June 02, @04:06PM (#687718)

        "In 1970 the average price of a new house was 7.5 times the annual earnings of a minimum wage earner. Today it's 24 times."

        The average new house today is 1,000 square feet larger than a new house from 1970.

        Few minimum wage earners could afford to buy a house in 1970, what with a minimum wage of $1.45/hour.

        Home ownership in the US was 62.9 percent in 1970, and 64.2 percent in 2018.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday June 02, @09:52PM

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Saturday June 02, @09:52PM (#687819) Homepage Journal

        Laziness is a trait in blacks. There’s no spirit.

        --
        Sent from my iPhone
    • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Saturday June 02, @11:39PM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @11:39PM (#687845) Journal

      Free trade agreements have significantly eroded the middle class in America.

      Note that most of the erosion (something like 60% [reason.com]) has resulted in people getting richer than middle class rather than poorer. Get a narrative that reflects reality.

      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday June 03, @06:33AM (3 children)

        by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @06:33AM (#687954)

        I like khallow's alternative universe. I could be in it too but first person experience does not fit with his data ever. Sad.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 03, @12:26PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @12:26PM (#687991) Journal

          but first person experience

          Fallacy of composition. The few people you know aren't the entire middle class.

          Do you have a reason you think the poll might be in error?

          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday June 04, @07:54AM (1 child)

            by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04, @07:54AM (#688274)

            Given that first person experience is the only absolutely certain thing in the universe, even for solipsists, and experiencing the results of other studies mismatching the one you listed about the middle class, I'd rather risk being biased than trusting a study because science. BTW I know how to massage numbers myself.

            Why in your universe antidepressants and drug and binge eating and binge drinking increased? Is that a sign of happy meatbag?

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 04, @12:38PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04, @12:38PM (#688330) Journal
              And yet, I'm still not hearing a reason for your opinion. I have a reason for mine. Given this disparity of rationality, the obvious solution is for you to change your opinion - unless, of course, you should come up with some more compelling and rational reason for your opinion at a later date.

              Why in your universe antidepressants and drug and binge eating and binge drinking increased? Is that a sign of happy meatbag?

              Ok, even if we grant that is true, why is that relevant? I didn't claim the world and its people were perfectly happy or without problems. I merely pointed out the error in a statement about the "eroding" of the middle class.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @01:51PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @01:51PM (#687667)

    Sounds like Angela Merkel was right: we (in Europe) can't depend on the USA anymore [theguardian.com].

    Since they probably believe [wikipedia.org] we're all outbred by niqab-wearing gay commie sharia following abortionists, the feeling I'm sure is mutual.

    • (Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 02, @02:08PM (8 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @02:08PM (#687672) Journal

      Europe can no longer completely rely on its longstanding British and US allies, Angela Merkel has warned

      Stupid bitch - the EU isn't old enough to have any "longstanding" allies. Israel is a newly minted country, and it's a few times older than the EU.

      “The times in which we could completely depend on others are, to a certain extent, over,”

      Wake up and smell the coffee. TANSTAAFL You pay your way. Ass, gas, or grass - no one rides for free.

      At the Nato summit in Brussels on Thursday, Trump repeated past accusations that other members of the alliance were failing to match America’s military spending commitment of 2% of GDP, saying this was “not fair” on US taxpayers.

      It's about time someone understood that, and did something about it. The US and UK pretty much fought the Cold War for Europe, after all. The US fought Vietnam for the French.

      He failed to endorse the pact’s article five mutual defence clause – an omission seen as especially striking as he was unveiling a memorial to those killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the US, the only time it has been triggered.

      Merkel continues to harbor hostiles from Islam, and she wants mutual defence? It isn't mutual defense if she's giving her country away, and expects us to defend her country. How retarded can she get?

      Your heroine, Merkel, needs to get out into the slums, and meet some of her "asylum seekers".

      --
      #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft #MUH_FREEZE_PEACH!!!111one
      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @03:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @03:12PM (#687703)

        Says the US guy who lives on the sticks and doesnt even really know his own country. Turn off the propaganda machine!

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by janrinok on Saturday June 02, @03:19PM (6 children)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @03:19PM (#687706) Journal

        Europe can no longer completely rely on its longstanding British and US allies, Angela Merkel has warned

        Stupid bitch - the EU isn't old enough to have any "longstanding" allies. Israel is a newly minted country, and it's a few times older than the EU.

        She didn't say the EU - she said Europe. Many Americans originated here. Now how could they have done that if Europe is 'new'. Try to follow what is being said.

        At the Nato summit in Brussels on Thursday (2017), Trump repeated past accusations that other members of the alliance were failing to match America’s military spending commitment of 2% of GDP, saying this was “not fair” on US taxpayers.

        It's about time someone understood that, and did something about it. The US and UK pretty much fought the Cold War for Europe, after all. The US fought Vietnam for the French.

        So are you suggesting that the other European nations did nothing during the Cold War? I happen to have served in 4 of them during that period. Oh, yes, you seem to have forgotten that Germany was divided. Perhaps your knowledge of history is a little lacking? And Western Germany and Eastern Germany were full of foreign military bases - the war was going to be fought initially on their soil - not yours. How about Norway, and Turkey, and the other countries that actually border onto Russia, or as it was then the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. They were just sat around playing at being holiday destinations or tourist attractions in your view were they?

        And the Russians must be laughing themselves silly nowadays. After all, the US does not support its allies (ignored them regarding climate change, Iran and has now imposed trade tariffs on its 'friends'. If the US is going to stand by its NATO commitments just as it has done with many others recently, Russia will have achieved the breakup of NATO by sitting by and letting the US administration make their dreams come true for them.

        The US fought Vietnam for the French.

        ... and lost, so I wouldn't go claiming that as a US success story. Not saying that it was the military's fault, but the US cannot claim that as being a win. Over 10% of the French Forces who fought in Vietnam lost their lives. Which nation stood alongside the US in the Gulf, Bosnia, and more recently in Syria? France, one the 5 permanent members of the security council. Your disdain for the French is fortunately not mirrored by their willingness to fight alongside you when necessary. And die just like Americans do.

        Merkel continues to harbor hostiles from Islam

        And there we have it - in your eyes a religion is now a terrorist organisation. So is Christianity, and pretty much every other religion along with atheists and agnostics, if you want to use your logic.

        --
        It's always my fault...
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 02, @03:31PM (4 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @03:31PM (#687711) Journal

          It is you who is missing the point. The US has been paying for Europe's defense for decades. No country on earth spends as much as the US on "defense". None. The USSR tried to compete, and bankrupted itself. Repeat after me: No country on earth spends as much on "defense" as the US of A. It would be difficult to find a block of nations - such as the EU - that spends as much as the US on our supposed "defense". In point of fact, the US funds huge portions of the world's defense forces.

          It's all well and good for Europeans to point east, and tell us that the big bad wolf is lurking. WTF do they expect us to pay for their defense? I'm a good neighbor, and all, but if they won't invest in a shotgun of their own, I'm not willing to guard their chickens for the rest of my life.

          --
          #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft #MUH_FREEZE_PEACH!!!111one
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Saturday June 02, @05:40PM (2 children)

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02, @05:40PM (#687757) Journal

            Well, the quoted piece was dated 2017 - and as a result several NATO nations have upped their defence spending. And all the NATO nations have committed significant forces too, although you seem to be ignoring that. Of course the US contributes more than anyone else - but compare it with the size of the country and its wealth and it is not as far ahead as you might think. Furthermore, the US would rather fight on someone else's territory rather than its own.

            Secondly, the fact that US forces are allocated to NATO doesn't mean that they don't also serve US interests elsewhere. Do you really think that your forces would shrink significantly if NATO went away? You would still have to protect the US, and would you rather fight that war in Europe or on your own soil? But without NATO you would also lose significant mobility. You would lose access to numerous military logistical and operational facilities that the US currently relies upon. You wouldn't be able to stage your aircraft through Europe on the way to the Middle East or elsewhere. You would lose access to numerous intelligence collection locations. Where would you base your existing air and land assets? Do you think that they could all be ship borne? The logistical tail would be a nightmare without access to European bases. Or are you expecting to leave NATO and the defence commitment, and then rely on our good will to give you what you want? You would be increasingly blind to existing terrorist threats which you would find difficult to disrupt until they arrive in your own, limited, area of influence.

            And on that thought, where would the 6th Fleet be based? Ah yes, Naples. Another NATO ally, so you could well lose that facility too. Or, of course, pay whatever the Italians want to have in return for your presence. So, you might not be saving money at all. But you would be losing influence and force projection. Of course, the rest of the Med is bordered by other NATO allies, potential enemies, or perhaps you might want to throw your hand in with a North African country. That will probably be cheaper than staying in NATO, but will cost you $billions in building new facilities. Quite a saving you imagine?

            Many of your existing assets would be next to worthless as a defensive capability if withdrawn to the CONUS. What would your artillery assets, your tanks, your infantry be targetting? All of your forces, or the great majority, would have to be converted to air deliverable - not just transportable - but deliverable to the battlefield. Remember, you have already sacrificed your numerous bases in Europe and you would be waiting for the enemy to be landing on your shores - by which time they will probably have already trampled through Europe anyway so you will be on your own. Good Luck!

            Alternatively, you can just isolate the US back on its own soil. I can think of several nations that would love to see that happen. That would surely but making America great again. Great with all the influence of a third world state because you could not project your forces without the cooperation of other nations. But why would they help you after seeing how you deserted your previous allies? Could you do it? Well, if you ever could it will be with the current administration or one similar to it. But I also think that you would soon rue the day that you made that decision.

            Your understanding is superficial at best - although that seems to be a common trait in the US administration at present. You are very good at the 'Rah Rah Rah US is Best!' but you haven't thought of how the world would look if you continue to alienate your friends and allies. As I have already said, the Russians must be loving this sort of 'thinking'. By all means, put the US first but don't think that by turning your back on Europe you will have an easier - or better - life. You should be thinking several moves ahead - not what is the best thing to get votes for the next election. Your best bet is to stop any war long before it reaches your shores. Perhaps we should create an Alliance with countries that can all help each other? Never - what a silly idea!

            --
            It's always my fault...
            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 03, @12:17AM (1 child)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @12:17AM (#687855) Journal

              Read below what #faketrump has posted.

              --
              #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft #MUH_FREEZE_PEACH!!!111one
              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Sunday June 03, @04:07AM

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @04:07AM (#687924) Journal

                I rarely read what FakeTrump writes,,, but I will make an exception.

                And as I expected, it is concentrating purely on the financial aspect. You are missing the point by a wide margin. The US benefits by having greater influence in the world by being able to project force and political influence. It avoids having wars fought on its own territory but rather several thousand miles away from home. It has access to facilities and bases in a region that is vitally important to it. You are using the same shallow thinking as your current administration - and FakeTrump. Of course we are grateful, for the time being, for all that it brings to us too, but being led by someone who doesn't understand geopolitics is causing you all to think in purely financial terms.

                Well, go ahead. It is your chosen government. But when the latest trade tariffs start to ruin our own industries do not expect your friends to remain as helpful to you then as they are now. And when you gain steel jobs but lose many more manufacturing jobs then remember what you have started. When you think that the only benefits should be viewed by looking at the bottom line then the US will become a mirror of all those big businesses that we - and you - spend so much time criticising here on this site. And when you start threatening the only organisation that has kept us all - you included - from another war be prepared for what you will reap.

                --
                It's always my fault...
          • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday June 02, @10:02PM

            by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Saturday June 02, @10:02PM (#687822) Homepage Journal

            NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. We’re spending the biggest, the lion share’s paid for by us. They pay virtually nothing, most of them. NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe, but we’re spending a lot of money. Number one, I think the distribution of costs has to be changed. You have countries in NATO, I think it’s 28 countries -- you have countries in NATO that are getting a free ride and it’s unfair, it’s very unfair. If they can’t pay their bills, they’ve got to go!!!!

            --
            Sent from my iPhone
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 04, @01:51PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04, @01:51PM (#688344) Journal

          She didn't say the EU - she said Europe.

          She doesn't speak for Europe. This would be far from the first time that a politician has presented their self-interests as belonging to a larger group. I see also in that story that she had in that speech excluded the UK and Russia from her label of "Europeans". Who else will be excluded in the future from "Europe"?

          The chancellor told a 2,500-strong crowd in the Bavarian capital that Germany and Europe would naturally strive to remain on good terms with the US, Britain and other countries, “even with Russia”, but added: “We have to know that we must fight for our future on our own, for our destiny as Europeans.”

          One also has to keep in mind that Merkel is one of the more significant destabilizing influences presently in the EU. While I don't see Syrian refugees economic or otherwise as a significant threat to the EU, it remains that Merkel nakedly pursued a policy of demographic replenishment of Germany at the consequence of increasing anti-immigration sentiment throughout the EU. In particular, Brexit was a very near thing. Even if Merkel merely paid lip service to immigration concerns at the time, that might have tipped the balance in favor of the EU.

(1) 2