I watched violent tv and played violent video games as a kid. I loved WWF wrestling. did I hit my friends over the head with a steel chair? Jump off a fence with a flying elbow onto my dad? no.
remember how bugs bunny used to have violence, and they edited it out for syndication? gimme a break. we all watched that shit growing up in the 80's and none of us shot up a school.
I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course. Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes. These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.
There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected.
What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family.
I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.
There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country.
And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump.
I agree with that bolded part. I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
Here's what I have to say about that: I've been assaulted twice in
the last year and a half. The first time was by being hit in the head
by a kid playing "knock out" game. I was not knocked out so I turned on
the guy just long enough to get him to back off a bit and then jumped
in my car and sped off. The guy that hit me had three buddies in the
wings to back him up.
The second time was a few weeks ago when a
guy came at me with a truck tire thumper (basically a heavy club). I
had enough of a lead to get away by running to the nearest store instead
of confronting the guy with a club.
I suppose in both cases my responses could be consider "cowardice". Well fuckin' A, I'll take cowardice over dead any day!
Where the hell do you live? Geez.
Placerville, California, in the Sierra foothills. Actually, the "knock out game" incident happened down in Fairfield in the Sacramento valley area. That's somewhat understandable. Talking to Jello Biafra once about a year ago, he referred to Sacramento as "Excremento". Well said, Jello, lol.
The guy that attacked me with a club was most likely a mentally ill homeless guy and this incident happened a Goodwill store just outside of Placerville. A very little part of me feels sorry for the guy but any time someone comes at me with a large club, that empathy runs very thin and dissipates very quickly. (I later went back to my car thinking I could get away and he ran up and hit the car twice very hard but hit windows which somehow did not shatter).
Violence is becoming an American tradition. Placerville is a small city of only about 12,000 people. We get a lot of tourism with Gold Rush history being the draw. People see it as a rather quaint town. But we are within easy driving distance of the Sacramento valley and a day drive away from the congested Bay Area. Like much of America, violence abounds in California these days. I'm not sure how California compares to other states regarding violence, but it's getting bad here. Maybe time to think about bailing on my long-time home state. But where the hell to go? Mars?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Pong was popular once and I doubt America suffered from too many people playing tennis like games. Did Mario make people eat mushrooms and stomp turtles? As has been pointed out American exceptionalism these days is just attempting to have all the guns (because fear?).
If you don't want to blame violent video games and make light of those games then don't blame guns either. You can't tell me that desensitizing children to all that violence hasn't caused this or at least helped create it. How many people are in the gaming industry that don't want the finger pointing at them so they don't lose billions in revenue.
I do think that first shooter video games play into the American gun culture. I don't think they have anything to do with this issue independently though. I.e. kids in countries where there isn't a gun culture don't seem to be influenced by them in the same way because there is no real life connection for them. They don't find that bridge from fantasy to reality that American kids might find quite easily because guns are everywhere and owning a bunch of them is generally considered relatively normal or is even sometimes encouraged and congratulated in that particular society.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Here's what I have to say about that: I've been assaulted twice in
the last year and a half. The first time was by being hit in the head
by a kid playing "knock out" game. I was not knocked out so I turned on
the guy just long enough to get him to back off a bit and then jumped
in my car and sped off. The guy that hit me had three buddies in the
wings to back him up.
The second time was a few weeks ago when a
guy came at me with a truck tire thumper (basically a heavy club). I
had enough of a lead to get away by running to the nearest store instead
of confronting the guy with a club.
I suppose in both cases my responses could be consider "cowardice". Well fuckin' A, I'll take cowardice over dead any day!
Where the hell do you live? Geez.
Placerville, California, in the Sierra foothills. Actually, the "knock out game" incident happened down in Fairfield in the Sacramento valley area. That's somewhat understandable. Talking to Jello Biafra once about a year ago, he referred to Sacramento as "Excremento". Well said, Jello, lol.
The guy that attacked me with a club was most likely a mentally ill homeless guy and this incident happened a Goodwill store just outside of Placerville. A very little part of me feels sorry for the guy but any time someone comes at me with a large club, that empathy runs very thin and dissipates very quickly. (I later went back to my car thinking I could get away and he ran up and hit the car twice very hard but hit windows which somehow did not shatter).
Violence is becoming an American tradition. Placerville is a small city of only about 12,000 people. We get a lot of tourism with Gold Rush history being the draw. People see it as a rather quaint town. But we are within easy driving distance of the Sacramento valley and a day drive away from the congested Bay Area. Like much of America, violence abounds in California these days. I'm not sure how California compares to other states regarding violence, but it's getting bad here. Maybe time to think about bailing on my long-time home state. But where the hell to go? Mars?
I bailed on California about 5 years ago. Now in Colorado, just a few days ago I pulled into a parking lot to see a car flying by me, followed by a guy all bloodied in the face. Guy runs up to me and begs me to go on this high speed chase after the car. I declined. I did call 911 though, Turns out he was hit in the head and car was stolen, and then hit by his own car, just seconds before I pulled in. This was Colorado Springs, not a bad part of town. Unfortunately I agree, I think violence in general seems more common.
Violent crime is not on the rise in America though. On the contrary. It's been on the decline for the past couple of decades. There's be a very light uptick in the past couple of years, but not enough for it to be statistically significant I don't think. In general, America has WAY less violent crime than it did in the 90s and earlier. I think the only other difference is that now we all hear about every single incident online, so it just feels like it's more common. But it's definitely not..... that said, there are WAY more mass shootings than there used to be, which is pretty much why this thread exists!
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I know you're right, I've seen that data on reduced crime. It just seems more common though. News reports on it more often it seems, and despite the reports I seem to witness it more than I used to.
Violent crime is not on the rise in America though. On the contrary. It's been on the decline for the past couple of decades. There's be a very light uptick in the past couple of years, but not enough for it to be statistically significant I don't think. In general, America has WAY less violent crime than it did in the 90s and earlier. I think the only other difference is that now we all hear about every single incident online, so it just feels like it's more common. But it's definitely not..... that said, there are WAY more mass shootings than there used to be, which is pretty much why this thread exists!
I know you're right, I've seen that data on reduced crime. It just seems more common though. News reports on it more often it seems, and despite the reports I seem to witness it more than I used to.
I've heard these statistics a number of times and maybe I'm just being too cynical, but I don't believe them.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
When it happens to you or you witness it, your perception becomes your reality. It seems Colorado Springs has seen an increase in violent crime, particularly murders. I'm not sure what the closest metro region is for Lux but it could also be up? Overall, nationwide, its down. Sorry you both were victimized and witnessed what you did.
Violent crime is not on the rise in America though. On the contrary. It's been on the decline for the past couple of decades. There's be a very light uptick in the past couple of years, but not enough for it to be statistically significant I don't think. In general, America has WAY less violent crime than it did in the 90s and earlier. I think the only other difference is that now we all hear about every single incident online, so it just feels like it's more common. But it's definitely not..... that said, there are WAY more mass shootings than there used to be, which is pretty much why this thread exists!
I know you're right, I've seen that data on reduced crime. It just seems more common though. News reports on it more often it seems, and despite the reports I seem to witness it more than I used to.
I've heard these statistics a number of times and maybe I'm just being too cynical, but I don't believe them.
it's the same thing with everything Brian. all these parents don't let their kid out of the house because there's a fucking pedophile on every corner. When in reality there isn't. it's just more widely reported now. back in our youth you only heard local incidents like this. now you hear national and even global incidents, but our brains can't turn off "well it didn't happen here". all our brains hear is "well it COULD happen here".
my parents are guilty of it, and they are the ones who tossed me out of the house to go play when I was 8 or 9 at noon and "come back at dinner". Now I tell them to let my kids go to the park down the street without them for an hour and my dad looks at me like I'm the worst parent alive.
I tell him to stop watching the fucking news. it's toxic.
how much does the "look at me i wanna be famous, social media, reality tv era" we live in contribute to why it's more prevalent today? I would say it definitely plays a small part.
how much does the "look at me i wanna be famous, social media, reality tv era" we live in contribute to why it's more prevalent today? I would say it definitely plays a small part.
To what? Mass shootings? It probably plays a big role, in a cyclical kind of way too. Not all mass shooters are "look at me", but the ones who are probably play a part in inspiring the rest to commit similar crimes. That said, it's not like disgruntled workers haven't always existed. I would venture to say that, of all the reasons mass shootings happen now, that disgruntled workers (which is the group this woman falls into) are the least preventable, both because of the nature of the motivation, and because you can't reasonably protect from that threat through proactive on-site prevention. It's not rational or practical for every business/company to enforce anti-mass shooter security measures, and I don't think anyone wants to live in a society where that is done anyhow. The risk does not justify such measures.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
Violent crime is not on the rise in America though. On the contrary. It's been on the decline for the past couple of decades. There's be a very light uptick in the past couple of years, but not enough for it to be statistically significant I don't think. In general, America has WAY less violent crime than it did in the 90s and earlier. I think the only other difference is that now we all hear about every single incident online, so it just feels like it's more common. But it's definitely not..... that said, there are WAY more mass shootings than there used to be, which is pretty much why this thread exists!
I know you're right, I've seen that data on reduced crime. It just seems more common though. News reports on it more often it seems, and despite the reports I seem to witness it more than I used to.
I've heard these statistics a number of times and maybe I'm just being too cynical, but I don't believe them.
it's the same thing with everything Brian. all these parents don't let their kid out of the house because there's a fucking pedophile on every corner. When in reality there isn't. it's just more widely reported now. back in our youth you only heard local incidents like this. now you hear national and even global incidents, but our brains can't turn off "well it didn't happen here". all our brains hear is "well it COULD happen here".
my parents are guilty of it, and they are the ones who tossed me out of the house to go play when I was 8 or 9 at noon and "come back at dinner". Now I tell them to let my kids go to the park down the street without them for an hour and my dad looks at me like I'm the worst parent alive.
I tell him to stop watching the fucking news. it's toxic.
Hmmm, could be, though I think I get my fear and paranoia from reading too much AMT.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Violent crime is not on the rise in America though. On the contrary. It's been on the decline for the past couple of decades. There's be a very light uptick in the past couple of years, but not enough for it to be statistically significant I don't think. In general, America has WAY less violent crime than it did in the 90s and earlier. I think the only other difference is that now we all hear about every single incident online, so it just feels like it's more common. But it's definitely not..... that said, there are WAY more mass shootings than there used to be, which is pretty much why this thread exists!
I know you're right, I've seen that data on reduced crime. It just seems more common though. News reports on it more often it seems, and despite the reports I seem to witness it more than I used to.
I've heard these statistics a number of times and maybe I'm just being too cynical, but I don't believe them.
it's the same thing with everything Brian. all these parents don't let their kid out of the house because there's a fucking pedophile on every corner. When in reality there isn't. it's just more widely reported now. back in our youth you only heard local incidents like this. now you hear national and even global incidents, but our brains can't turn off "well it didn't happen here". all our brains hear is "well it COULD happen here".
my parents are guilty of it, and they are the ones who tossed me out of the house to go play when I was 8 or 9 at noon and "come back at dinner". Now I tell them to let my kids go to the park down the street without them for an hour and my dad looks at me like I'm the worst parent alive.
I tell him to stop watching the fucking news. it's toxic.
Hmmm, could be, though I think I get my fear and paranoia from reading too much AMT.
you're right. now it's not just the evening news. it's everywhere we look, 24/7. it's hard to escape. the constant doom and gloom news cycle is a big problem these days. people can't handle the constant barrage of negativity. it's too much.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
Violent crime is not on the rise in America though. On the contrary. It's been on the decline for the past couple of decades. There's be a very light uptick in the past couple of years, but not enough for it to be statistically significant I don't think. In general, America has WAY less violent crime than it did in the 90s and earlier. I think the only other difference is that now we all hear about every single incident online, so it just feels like it's more common. But it's definitely not..... that said, there are WAY more mass shootings than there used to be, which is pretty much why this thread exists!
I know you're right, I've seen that data on reduced crime. It just seems more common though. News reports on it more often it seems, and despite the reports I seem to witness it more than I used to.
I've heard these statistics a number of times and maybe I'm just being too cynical, but I don't believe them.
it's the same thing with everything Brian. all these parents don't let their kid out of the house because there's a fucking pedophile on every corner. When in reality there isn't. it's just more widely reported now. back in our youth you only heard local incidents like this. now you hear national and even global incidents, but our brains can't turn off "well it didn't happen here". all our brains hear is "well it COULD happen here".
my parents are guilty of it, and they are the ones who tossed me out of the house to go play when I was 8 or 9 at noon and "come back at dinner". Now I tell them to let my kids go to the park down the street without them for an hour and my dad looks at me like I'm the worst parent alive.
I tell him to stop watching the fucking news. it's toxic.
Hmmm, could be, though I think I get my fear and paranoia from reading too much AMT.
you're right. now it's not just the evening news. it's everywhere we look, 24/7. it's hard to escape. the constant doom and gloom news cycle is a big problem these days. people can't handle the constant barrage of negativity. it's too much.
What irks me the most is that so much of this bad news in focused on anthropocentric concerns like crime, sexuality, and a whole slew of social issues. NOT to say that those things aren't important (of course they are) but, as Yvonne Chouinard once said (or quoted), "without a world healthy enough to sustain human life, there are no social issues". The really bad (and justifiably described as such) news is that humans are turning this planet into a place that in the not-to-distant future, will not be suitable for human life other than in (maybe) a few isolated places on earth. I think there is a high tech kind of mentality that thinks that technology will solve all of these problems. I believe that kind of thinking is very risky at best. Sure, maybe I.A. will come into existence soon, but what will that leave us? A bunch of machines that can feed on solar power and self-replicate? This kind of thinking ignores- defies even- the basic principles of ecological sciences, and unless we really want a world populated by inorganic machines, I think we are screwing ourselves badly.
I know- very negative thinking and maybe I should just jump off a bridge, LOL. But oh no, I'm still fighting for organisms!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
Oh, you read that as orgasms? Well that too, of course!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Violent crime is not on the rise in America though. On the contrary. It's been on the decline for the past couple of decades. There's be a very light uptick in the past couple of years, but not enough for it to be statistically significant I don't think. In general, America has WAY less violent crime than it did in the 90s and earlier. I think the only other difference is that now we all hear about every single incident online, so it just feels like it's more common. But it's definitely not..... that said, there are WAY more mass shootings than there used to be, which is pretty much why this thread exists!
Just my own personal experience, but I’ve never once been a victim of violent crime. (Age 48) Granted I live and have lived in lower crime areas. But I freely walk around in the middle of the night to go from the bar to home without incident. When I lived in Portland, women walking alone would say hi to me along the dark residential streets. There’s something about the quiet energy of a town at night that I really like.
I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course. Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes. These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.
There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected.
What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family.
I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.
There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country.
And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump.
I agree with that bolded part. I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves.
I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course. Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes. These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.
There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected.
What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family.
I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.
There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country.
And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump.
I agree with that bolded part. I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves.
In NYS, unemployment doesnt cover minimum wage.
Does that "data" impact your opinion?
Yeah, I’m pretty doubtful about that, too.
And I think two different issues are being conflated in mace’s post. “Unemployment insurance” generally refers to a program that the employee has paid into and is then eligible for after losing a job through no fault of their own, like being laid off. In Canada it’s a certain percentage of your prior salary with a pretty low cap, so not particularly lucrative. However, social assistance, which is more what conservatives generally rail against, is so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it if they had any chance of working. Here in BC the basic social assistance payment monthly is hundreds of dollars below just the lowest monthly rental properties, let alone other costs.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course. Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes. These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.
There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected.
What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family.
I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.
There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country.
And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump.
I agree with that bolded part. I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves.
In NYS, unemployment doesnt cover minimum wage.
Does that "data" impact your opinion?
Yeah, I’m pretty doubtful about that, too.
And I think two different issues are being conflated in mace’s post. “Unemployment insurance” generally refers to a program that the employee has paid into and is then eligible for after losing a job through no fault of their own, like being laid off. In Canada it’s a certain percentage of your prior salary with a pretty low cap, so not particularly lucrative. However, social assistance, which is more what conservatives generally rail against, is so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it if they had any chance of working. Here in BC the basic social assistance payment monthly is hundreds of dollars below just the lowest monthly rental properties, let alone other costs.
Why would unemployment not covering minimum wage change my opinion? Seems unrelated to my comment. My comment was conservatives aren't against helping people, but are against excessive handouts. And from my understanding, unemployment is based off of previous wages. Does no one else really not know anyone who has taken advantage of the system? every time this topic comes up on other threads I see many posts similar to that of "so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it." That is 100% not true. I'm not saying the majority do, but there are definitely plenty who do. I know I said unemployment as an example, but I was referring to all forms of assistance. My ex-girlfriend's father and 2 very close friends from college all took 2 years to find a job when unemployment was increased to 2 years. They all 3 rarely applied to jobs and turned down others because why work 40 hours a week to make 3k, when you can go to the beach every day and hang out and make $1800? I had a roommate who was on disability and got $900 every 2 weeks. Her disability was ADD and was very capable of working. She turned down jobs because she would lose disability of she got hired. In fact, she took jobs all the time that paid cash because she didn't have to report that. My wife was a big sister, he little sister lived with her mom and grandma, all who openly stated why should they try to work when the government pays for their housing and food? It was so obvious even the daughter at 10 and 12 years old was saying thing slike she doesn;t need school or jobs because the government will pay her like her mom. The situation was very much like the movie "Precious" if you've never seen it, that homelife definitely does exist. A lot of the times these situations people will chose to work part time so they can still qualify for benefits, or take cash jobs so they don't report them. Don't get me wrong, many or most getting assistance need it, but am I really the only one who believes there are people who take advantage of free money?
I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course. Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes. These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.
There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected.
What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family.
I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.
There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country.
And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump.
I agree with that bolded part. I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves.
Comments
I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves.
The guy that attacked me with a club was most likely a mentally ill homeless guy and this incident happened a Goodwill store just outside of Placerville. A very little part of me feels sorry for the guy but any time someone comes at me with a large club, that empathy runs very thin and dissipates very quickly. (I later went back to my car thinking I could get away and he ran up and hit the car twice very hard but hit windows which somehow did not shatter).
Violence is becoming an American tradition. Placerville is a small city of only about 12,000 people. We get a lot of tourism with Gold Rush history being the draw. People see it as a rather quaint town. But we are within easy driving distance of the Sacramento valley and a day drive away from the congested Bay Area. Like much of America, violence abounds in California these days. I'm not sure how California compares to other states regarding violence, but it's getting bad here. Maybe time to think about bailing on my long-time home state. But where the hell to go? Mars?
Now in Colorado, just a few days ago I pulled into a parking lot to see a car flying by me, followed by a guy all bloodied in the face. Guy runs up to me and begs me to go on this high speed chase after the car. I declined.
I did call 911 though, Turns out he was hit in the head and car was stolen, and then hit by his own car, just seconds before I pulled in.
This was Colorado Springs, not a bad part of town. Unfortunately I agree, I think violence in general seems more common.
I've heard these statistics a number of times and maybe I'm just being too cynical, but I don't believe them.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/preliminary-report/tables/table-4/state-cuts/alabama-through-california.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/preliminary-report/tables/table-4/state-cuts/colorado-through-hawaii.xls
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
my parents are guilty of it, and they are the ones who tossed me out of the house to go play when I was 8 or 9 at noon and "come back at dinner". Now I tell them to let my kids go to the park down the street without them for an hour and my dad looks at me like I'm the worst parent alive.
I tell him to stop watching the fucking news. it's toxic.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
I know- very negative thinking and maybe I should just jump off a bridge, LOL. But oh no, I'm still fighting for organisms!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
In NYS, unemployment doesnt cover minimum wage.
Does that "data" impact your opinion?
And I think two different issues are being conflated in mace’s post. “Unemployment insurance” generally refers to a program that the employee has paid into and is then eligible for after losing a job through no fault of their own, like being laid off. In Canada it’s a certain percentage of your prior salary with a pretty low cap, so not particularly lucrative. However, social assistance, which is more what conservatives generally rail against, is so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it if they had any chance of working. Here in BC the basic social assistance payment monthly is hundreds of dollars below just the lowest monthly rental properties, let alone other costs.
What is it good for?
Stand up and shout it,
NOTHING!
And from my understanding, unemployment is based off of previous wages.
Does no one else really not know anyone who has taken advantage of the system? every time this topic comes up on other threads I see many posts similar to that of "so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it." That is 100% not true. I'm not saying the majority do, but there are definitely plenty who do. I know I said unemployment as an example, but I was referring to all forms of assistance.
My ex-girlfriend's father and 2 very close friends from college all took 2 years to find a job when unemployment was increased to 2 years. They all 3 rarely applied to jobs and turned down others because why work 40 hours a week to make 3k, when you can go to the beach every day and hang out and make $1800?
I had a roommate who was on disability and got $900 every 2 weeks. Her disability was ADD and was very capable of working. She turned down jobs because she would lose disability of she got hired. In fact, she took jobs all the time that paid cash because she didn't have to report that. My wife was a big sister, he little sister lived with her mom and grandma, all who openly stated why should they try to work when the government pays for their housing and food? It was so obvious even the daughter at 10 and 12 years old was saying thing slike she doesn;t need school or jobs because the government will pay her like her mom. The situation was very much like the movie "Precious" if you've never seen it, that homelife definitely does exist.
A lot of the times these situations people will chose to work part time so they can still qualify for benefits, or take cash jobs so they don't report them.
Don't get me wrong, many or most getting assistance need it, but am I really the only one who believes there are people who take advantage of free money?