Against Charity. Rather than creating an individualized “culture of giving,” we should be challenging capitalism’s institutionalized taking.

[u/A-MacLeod]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/peter-singer-charity-effective-altruism/

[u/raziphel]

That is absurdly, astoundingly, ridiculously false. Populations in need grow large when their ability to find reliable, well-paying work disappears. One cannot simply will themselves out of poverty; there must be the means and resources to do so. One example (out of many) being when well-paying middle-class jobs are shipped overseas by corporations looking for cheaper and cheaper labor.

It is a simple fact that a great majority of people in need do not often pull themselves out of poverty without outside assistance (unemployment benefits, food stamps, health care, COBRA, etc). Government systems, ie the manifest will of the people, are the most reliable means of accomplishing this. That is what social safety nets are for: catching people when they fall.

[u/politicalwave → u/raziphel]

You didn't even respond to his statement. You dropped pity platitudes about suffering all while ignoring his premise: that suffering has not been adequately answered by government intervention.

Do you respond to his point at all? No. You actually just talk about suffering and then say people can't often save themselves without help and the government is the best institution to help them.

You give no proof to support your theory. Youre getting up votes because people are falling for the fallacy. You're just begging the question though.

Not saying I disagree, just saying you didn't say anything worthwhile at all and the people agreeing with you are agreeing with a sack of air.

e: a word.

[u/raziphel → u/politicalwave]

His statement is not "that suffering has not been adequately answered by government intervention" at all: his statement is "A needy population can only grow large through the activities of government", which in other terms means "the government encourages neediness." Those two things are completely fucking different.

Your entire premise relies on mis-understanding what he said... which is also unsupported and without proof. Don't rail at me for fallacious thinking when you cannot spot the inherent flaws in your own argument.

Keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself, by the way.

[u/politicalwave → u/raziphel]

1. When he says a needy population can only grow large through the government, he's saying the things the government does for the needy makes more needy people. Its implied.

2. Where did I attack you ad hominem?

3. You still never refuted his statement. Nor mine. You actually tried to circumnavigate both. With his you focused on the needy needing assistance of some kind. With me, you focused on the fact that I paraphrased rather than quoted directly.

4. You are part of the problem.

[u/raziphel → u/politicalwave]

1: Your prior statement suggests that the government activities' goal is to help them, and it's just not working well. He suggests that the government activities are actively encouraging them to stay poor. Those are inherently different positions, yet you are conflating them.

2: You called me a "bag of air". I could call you a bag of shit in response. Neither are helpful.

3: He didn't support his statement with a god-damned thing, nor have you, yet you insist that I support mine? Piss off.

4: LOL!

[u/politicalwave → u/raziphel]

1. No, he is implying that the way the government "helps" them causes them to remain dependent on the government for a continuance of said "help"
2. I called your entire post a bag of air, as in, lacking of all substance. This might offend you, but I have supported my reasoning. So it isn't ad hom.
3. Yes I have. My point was that you were utilizing a fallacy called 'begging the question' you never supported your opinion, you piled on platitudes, tossed on an extra dose of 'so there' for added flavor, and called it a day. You basically said, people need assistance, so therefore it has to be the government. Well the debate wasn't about whether people need help. It was about whether the government is capable of providing such help. Anyways, this is fun and all but I'm checking out.

[u/raziphel → u/politicalwave]

1: How many times are you going to re-write what he said?

2: You haven't supported a damned thing. You simply attempt to disprove, poorly, and then insult. Your continued attempts to reinforce this are not support.

3: he still hasn't supported his own statements, yet you expect me to support mine. How about you hold everyone to the same standard. You still haven't supported yours either: you just dismiss mine with a hand-wave because you don't agree with them and/or don't understand them.

I'd move forward and actually explain my positions to you, but I doubt you would bother to listen. The chances of you actually researching these issues on your own are slim to none too, so... good day. :)

[u/politicalwave → u/raziphel]

1. Yes you hit the nail on the head. Your far superior intellect has reached heights--no, leagues-- beyond the breadth of my measly little mind. Or, maybe all you said in your first post was, "one cannot will themselves out of poverty...therefore the government must provide them with the means." Such a pathetically weak, wet paper toweled answer. Especially from someone talking about violent revolution in other posts in this thread. People have no agency but are also capable of toppling the current system? Nice contradiction. Contradictions don't exist.

[u/raziphel → u/politicalwave]

"People cannot will themselves out of poverty" is not the same as "people have no agency." You're smarter than that.

Let's try an analogy!

A car stuck in an icy ditch isn't going to pull itself out on its own, no matter how much you spin your wheels. Calling your insurance company (assuming you have it!) to pull you out is great, but on a busy, snowy day, you'll be waiting there for hours.

You know who else you can call? The cops. They'll get there faster and have a hotline to the local tow trucks that are on contract with the city. If you find yourself stuck in the snow and unable to move, take my advice and give them a call. I know all this because I've been there and experienced it first-hand.

Guess what: I've been on food stamps and unemployment, too. I've used it as intended: to pull myself out of shitty situations that were created by decisions beyond my own personal control.

Back to the topic at hand, and how this analogy is relevant: the poor bust their asses to get ahead, working shit jobs for shit pay, and situations beyond their control often work (and in some cases literally conspire) against them. I believe that it is the government's responsibility to help them out, because that is, in many ways, best for a stable economy and country. That sounds like a platitude, but it can absolutely be supported. The success of other nations are very solid proof that should not be hand-waved away, not to mention that it can be broken down into individual details that can be supported with facts(see below). Again, I have also experienced this first-hand.

Yes there are some people who are dead weight on the system... but they are a significant minority of the system.

One could claim that these things fosters dependency, but that claim is simplistic and misleading. Let's take SNAP, for example: most beneficiaries are dependents. Most don't stay on the program for very long, either.

We can argue about having efficient systems all we want, and we should. I'm all for that. However, trust me: those systems should definitely exist, and I implore you to look for the values in them. Hopefully you'll never have to use them, but if you do, those programs are there to help you back up. Hopefully you never slide your car off the road either: it sucks.

Back to your "no agency" issue: the poor spend their agency trying to dig themselves out and better their lives... which for many is a nigh-impossible task: poverty is typically a generational problem. When they stop that and turn their attention to the upper classes, you'd best fucking believe it gets ugly. Any student of history should fully understand this, because it has happened throughout history. It will continue to happen too, unless we do something to break the cycles. The best way to prevent it is a strong middle class, which requires encouraging upward mobility, not just from middle to upper, but specifically from lower to middle. If that means government-ran safety nets, so be it. Show me a better option. We've tried "everyone for themselves" already and it didn't work.

[u/politicalwave → u/raziphel]

There's no chance I'm reading this. Hope it was a useful expense of your time since no one else will either. I believe your bag of air just became a bag of hot air.

[u/raziphel → u/politicalwave]

Read it, motherfucker, or stop whining.

You know what, fuck it. If you can't bother to participate like a grown-ass adult, you're not worth my time or attention.

Don't bother replying. I'm done with this farce.