Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

[Burning Kitty]

<Snipped quote by Burning Kitty>
So we should let the disabled just rot?

@Andreyich

You don't have to let them rot, but if you want to do something it should be done by you personally or by charities.

[mdk]

Not my problem, tax money should never be used to benefit a single person, only things like infrastructure, military, stuff that benefits everyone. They shouldn't be getting any neetbux in the first place, nothing more than government theft.

...

You don't have to let them rot, but if you want to do something it should be done by you personally or by charities.

@Burning Kitty

Now see, the latter part there gets argued a lot, but argued differently. The accurate argument is, person-to-person and/or charities (the smaller the better) are much more efficient at distributing I guess the word is neetbux? This is a true statement -- small groups are, by their very nature, more efficient, at just about anything.

However, big groups (like the federal government) are much more effective at distributing benefits. It might cost them ten bucks to make sure Lucy gets a dollar, but Lucy gets that dollar, on time, every time. That's the dichotomy. Where's the balance supposed to be, I mean, more on the private side probably than it is right now, but not overly so. And here's why.

Feeding the poor and destitute, creating a society in which the disabled and the elderly and the abject poor are allowed to exist and survive and do shit, is good for everyone. Nearly every single one of us, eventually, is going to become disabled. Most people, that doesn't happen until you're retired; some people die before they get a chance. But it's coming for you, period, dot. You can either live in perpetual dread of that Logan's Run scenario, or you and your employer can each drop 6.2% of your income into SSI and know that when it finally happens to you -- because it will -- you've paid your dues and you're covered.

Okay, so that's, like, broad-stroking the whole issue. Yeah, the system needs a lot of big-time reforms. It's gonna go bankrupt before long (partially because your SSI payments get raided for other government programs, including infrastructure and military and the like; partially because we're giving money to too many people), and you shouldn't count on it to take care of you if you've got other options (at a minimum, take your annual SSI contributions, double them, and put that much money into a ROTH IRA, you'll be glad you did). And that's not really addressing the folks who take advantage of the system -- they're a minority but they do a disproportionate amount of damage (just google "social security fraud billion" and look at the money sieve). Yes, some shit needs to hpapen to fix it.

My point is, a safety net -- even one you don't need right now -- is a good thing for everybody, within reason. If we have a problem in the US with our safety-net situation, it's because we're not allowed to reasonably look at it or try to fix it, because the people taking advantage get just as many votes as the people trying to fix it.

[Burning Kitty]

My point is, a safety net -- even one you don't need right now -- is a good thing for everybody, within reason.

@mdk

That is why I have a Roth IRA, savings accounts, numerous certificate of deposits, and a separate investment account.

I won't need no stinking government "safety net."

[Andreyich]

<Snipped quote by mdk>That is why I have a Roth IRA, savings accounts, numerous certificate of deposits, and a separate investment account.

I won't need no stinking government "safety net."

@Burning Kitty

I'm pretty sure you're not disabled in any way (other than holding these opinions?) so that's a wrong spot to make that argument from.

[Burning Kitty]

<Snipped quote by Burning Kitty>

I'm pretty sure you're not disabled in any way (other than holding these opinions?) so that's a wrong spot to make that argument from.

@Andreyich

According to @mdk it is a guarantee I will be disabled unless I die first, so not wrong spot.

As for opinions making a person disabled, that is a slippery slope. To bad we already fell down that slope and all hope for humanity was gored to death at the bottom of the slope.

[mdk]

<Snipped quote by mdk>That is why I have a Roth IRA, savings accounts, numerous certificate of deposits, and a separate investment account.

I won't need no stinking government "safety net."

@Burning Kitty

Fantastic. That's exactly what you should be doing. Keep doing it (like you need me to say it). Everybody else should be doing this too. Save your goddamn money folks.

Anyway. That's very nice for you. It was very nice for me, too -- but the money did run out eventually. Luckily it turns out I'm fucking great at having a leg chopped off, and I was able to get back to work pretty quick. But if it wasn't for that, you can bet the money I saved in my early 20's wasn't gonna be enough to last me the rest of my life. And I don't wanna brag or nothing but I was earning a lot. It's pretty easy for me to picture my situation happening to someone else, and them getting totally and completely fucked. I don't think that taking care of that guy/girl is government theft.

Anywho. I could keep going but I get the distinct impression you're not entirely serious. Could be wrong. w/e.

[mdk]

According to @mdk it is a guarantee I will be disabled unless I die first, so not wrong spot.

@Burning Kitty

We all get there eventually, to some degree or another. 100%. Get up for it.

EDIT: was gonna go for three in a row, but then I thought better of it. Plus I'm not tagging anyone.

NFL anthem topic?

[POOHEAD189]

@mdk@Andreyich
This pretty much sums up how we all probably feel when Burning Kitty posts.

[mdk]

@mdk@Andreyich
This pretty much sums up how we all probably feel when Burning Kitty posts.

@POOHEAD189

But for real though I don't care who says an idea. If it's a good idea then it's a good idea. If it's a bad idea I better be able to explain why. In that sense, there are no enemies in a political conversation but those who want to silence another voice.

[POOHEAD189]

I Agreed@mdk

---

As for the NFL thing, I'm already tired of it. And I don't watch sports.

On the one hand, the NFL isn't a volunteer extracurricular activity, it's a sport and the players are entertainers and essentially employees, so the owners and the NFL have every right to fire or fine them for going against what they require for the job. Hell, viewership of the NFL went down 20% the past few years because the NFL was already getting too 'political' apparently, so this is suicide for the NFL if they don't get a hold of it.

On the other hand, I do think it's a bit extreme to cry for the blood of these players that choose to kneel. They're trying to make a statement that is important to them.

I will say though, that while I am more inclined to agree with the player's politics, I am also of the opinion that they shouldn't kneel. Not because I'm patriotic, but because kneeling solves no problems and is probably the least tactful thing they could do to try and attempt to get a message across. To the eyes of almost everyone that disagrees with them, they are literally protesting America.

[mdk]

I will say though, that while I am more inclined to agree with the player's politics, I am also of the opinion that they shouldn't kneel. Not because I'm patriotic, but because kneeling solves no problems and is probably the least tactful thing they could do to try and attempt to get a message across. To the eyes of almost everyone that disagrees with them, they are literally protesting America.

@POOHEAD189

And I'm on the opposite side -- like, I'm inclined to disagree with the players' politics in this case, but I think they're doing protest exactly right. It's nonviolent. It's not even that disrespectful. It hurts nobody but themselves (and the league owners, but they've always got that option to fire, so it goes right back on the player).

They're basically nailing it, in all areas except actually communicating their point. This was supposed to be about police brutality -- which again we could have a whole argument there -- but suddenly it's all about Trump. Kneeling during the anthem to protest justicial inequality? Brave. Kneeling to protest a president you don't like? Childish.

But it does bring up an interesting dilemma. Does the NFL, as an organization, have he right to define its own speech? On the one hand, players (assuming citizenship) have constitutional protections in place for their own speech. On the other, they're wearing an NFL uniform, they're employed by the NFL, they're representing the NFL. Does the NFL get to say "No, sorry, you can't do that or you're fired?"

I mean we've established that they can penalize players for celebrations that the NFL deems inappropriate. We've established that kneeling can lose you your job (see for reference: Tim Tebow). It seems a short leap to say the NFL can fire you for kneeling during the anthem -- just like they could presumably fire you for shouting during a moment of silence. We've established that certain political speech can be prohibited by the NFL (like a show-of-support for Dallas P.D. after the BLM shooters killed several officers at an otherwise peaceful protest, which the NFL deemed inappropriate and forbade). So.... where's the line, do you figure? Open-ended question to all.

[Penny]

<Snipped quote by Penny>

....you sure you're not a republican?

@mdk

Very ;)

I don't have some weird ideological fetish that requires a particular top down government only solution, I just want people to be able to get quality healthcare without it bankrupting them. Ill pull together some thoughts when my brain is a little less scrambled by 8 hours of orientation.

[POOHEAD189]

@mdk The reason why I think it was ill-advised was because the entire point was the point, which was lost. He did the absolute worst thing to do when trying to make a point, which was piss most of America off.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[Penny]

but I think they're doing protest exactly right. It's nonviolent. It's not even that disrespectful. It hurts nobody but themselves (and the league owners, but they've always got that option to fire, so it goes right back on the player).

Kneeling during the anthem to protest justicial inequality? Brave. Kneeling to protest a president you don't like? Childish.

@mdk

So much agreeing with MDK! WHAT IS HAPPENING!

So.... where's the line, do you figure? Open-ended question to all.

@mdk

We can all agree that the players as individuals have free speech rights and I am glad that they are using their celebrity to forward the debate in such a public and effective fashion.

That being said the NFL absolutely retains the right to discipline them if they disagree with the behavior. When they are kneeling for the national anthem they are doing it as NFL employees and its contravening policy the NFL is well within its rights to take action. It dosen't seem like the NFL is inclined to do that and there is apparently no clear prohibition preventing them from expressing themselves in this way.

My employers have a clause in my contract which stipulates that I will do nothing to bring the company into disrepute. I would assume from former domestic violence cases that the NFL does something similar. Its really up to the employer to set codes of conduct ESPECIALLY at work.

[POOHEAD189]

If anybody's bored and gives enough of a fuck, here's some "light reading".

@catchamber

Oh God. And I'm finishing two character sheets tonight. Must...resist... yearning to learn.

[Andreyich]

I mean, I'm not really a gommunist but I think relying on private charity and the "goodness of man" is really stupid when in context of caring for the disabled. After, the very institution of capitalism and modern right wing economics is self-interest, and burning seems like a bit of an ancap.

[Burning Kitty]

<Snipped quote by Burning Kitty>

Fantastic. That's exactly what you should be doing. Keep doing it (like you need me to say it). Everybody else should be doing this too. Save your goddamn money folks.

@mdk

They won't and they deserve whatever happens.

Anywho. I could keep going but I get the distinct impression you're not entirely serious. Could be wrong. w/e.

@mdk

You are definitely wrong. I am sick and tired of seeing the leeches with $100 shoes but bitching and complaining because they ain't given enough for food when half of their shopping cart if full of the most expensive meat you can buy. They are nothing but lazy, entitled assholes who need to be forced to work doing the absolute worst jobs.

[Andreyich]

You are definitely wrong. I am sick and tired of seeing the leeches with $100 shoes but bitching and complaining because they ain't given enough for food when half of their shopping cart if full of the most expensive meat you can buy. They are nothing but lazy, entitled assholes who need to be forced to work doing the absolute worst jobs.

You don't need to give money on welfare to support the disabled.

[Burning Kitty]

But it does bring up an interesting dilemma. Does the NFL, as an organization, have he right to define its own speech? On the one hand, players (assuming citizenship) have constitutional protections in place for their own speech. On the other, they're wearing an NFL uniform, they're employed by the NFL, they're representing the NFL. Does the NFL get to say "No, sorry, you can't do that or you're fired?"

@mdk

news.grabien.com/story-roger-goodell-…

The NFL rule book specifically requires both teams appear on the field for the playing of the anthem, standing, remaining quiet, and holding their helmets in their left hands. Failure to do so can result in fines, suspensions, and the loss of draft picks.

The rules are found on pages A62-63 of the league’s game operations manual:

The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.

During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

Whether or not team owners can fire them may be up to individual contracts with players. Either they are disrespectful asses who should leave this country and never come back. North Korea might be a better home for those neanderthals.