The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
First, as already argued, you state as wrong three comments from one person who was clearly sharing her own thoughts, experiences, and observations. Not only that, but she has already corrected her statements and put them in context -- as you yourself also did in the same thread. And what did we establish?
*She misstated about who was paying Federal unemployment tax and was corrected. She admitted she'd been incorrect and thanked the person who corrected it. Her central point had been and remained that unemployment payments were low -- a point never refuted.
*She clarified that her observations about tuition were based on non-resident status, which makes her claim correct in those circumstances (which you know).
*She expresses her own opinion, basically wondering why we aren't angry about certain situations. You have seemingly read a lot into that. You are arguing against things never stated or implied.
Before I get into defending myself and my interpretation of the WSJ article, I'll ask you this -- you made some incorrect statements in that thread as well. How would you feel if someone who had read the whole thread and your consequent corrections, went into another thread and quoted you out of context?
I could easily comb through and say many things like "wchurchill believes everyone making $20k per year pays NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. WRONG!"
Would that be fair? I don't think you'd be very happy about it, especially since you and I went back and forth quite a bit to establish the veracity of that statement and corrected it. In fact, quoting your original statement without acknowledging your correction would be, in essence, telling a falsehood, since I know better.
Now, as to my very own statement about the WSJ and their ilk. You say:
Analsis of WSJ article, which project much of American opinion:
"They tell these lies over and over, that it's not the system it's the people, the underclass with their "certain characteristics." It's not a lack of jobs, education, skills, or opportunity, they say. It's the people. The inert mothers and lazy fathers who won't get out of bed. These people do nothing to help themselves, they always say. And they profit from these lies and this fear and make the moat wider while the castle grounds shrink."
YEAH AMERICANS COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE POOR, DON'T DO ANYTHING TO TRY TO ALLEVIATE IT, DON'T CONTRIBUTE THEIR HOURS OF WORK OR MONEY. AMERICANS ARE JUST BLOOD SUCKERS ON THE LOWER CLASS.
First, I'm happy you acknowledge that the article reflects the opinion of many people in America -- the fact that many believe these conditions are the poor's own fault and not a flaw in the system is one of the problems I'm addressing. It's good to hear someone admit it instead of denying it.
But I think it was clear, although perhaps not, that I was not talking about all the American people. I was describing, as afew basically points out, the statements of those in power as regards those without.
You accuse me of viewing all Americans in a certain way -- uncaring and unhelpful. I did not write this and, further, I don't think it. I believe many Americans are exceedingly kind, generous, and hardworking.
What particularly interests me though, is your continued view of the "lower class" as seperate from "Americans" as illustrated in your false claim that I think Americans are bloodsuckers.
To be clear, the point of my using the WSJ article was to illustrate how some powerful people and institutions in America dehumanize the poor. Calling the poor inert, lazy, and that they cannot be helped through normal means is vile propaganda -- even when framed as a search for solutions.
Now. The fact that seemingly nice enough people such as yourself apparently can't see anything wrong with calling fellow Americans in dire straits lazy and inert is, in my view, a very clear example of the problem I am speaking to.
Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
by Oui - Jan 23 20 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 14 13 comments
by Oui - Jan 19 17 comments
by Oui - Jan 17 7 comments
by ARGeezer - Jan 17 25 comments
by Oui - Jan 10 112 comments
by Oui - Jan 13 4 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 6 8 comments
by Oui - Jan 281 comment
by Oui - Jan 27
by Oui - Jan 2418 comments
by Oui - Jan 2320 comments
by Oui - Jan 1917 comments
by Oui - Jan 177 comments
by ARGeezer - Jan 1725 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1413 comments
by Oui - Jan 134 comments
by Oui - Jan 131 comment
by Oui - Jan 10112 comments
by Oui - Jan 931 comments
by Oui - Jan 812 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 68 comments
by Oui - Jan 6116 comments
by ARGeezer - Jan 541 comments
by Oui - Jan 493 comments
by Oui - Jan 386 comments
by Oui - Jan 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3118 comments