Prejudice & Privilege: How to combat them.

if a person cannot do useful work why should they be allowed to help make decisions?

I think you'll find that what is considered useful isn't really an agreed-upon monolith.

@Maddie: "disabled" comes in more flavors than physical; sure, someone in a wheelchair can do math (probably better than me, I suck at it). But do we want a person with Down's Syndrome voting because they can figure out how to count caterpillar fuzz?

I may be an asshole for saying it, but I think not.

@Kash: Give me an example of such. Useful work is like pornography...you know it when you see it.

Would discussion of voting standards be off-topic?

But I do believe you're a bit misinformed about Down's Syndrome, it is not always as extreme as your example indicates.

edited 23rd Jun '11 11:15:17 PM by blueharp

^^ My discussions with Deboss spring to mind - he thinks Shakespeare should be banned from school curricula, and I think several of his works should be mandatory for the lessons they can teach us about racism, sexism, romantic and parental love, and a number of other nigh-omnipresent issues. I don't know where you stand in that discussion, nor does it matter really - the point is that I think something that another person finds useless is extremely useful.

edited 23rd Jun '11 11:17:37 PM by kashchei

@blue: that was an example, not a comment about Down's Syndrome...certainly I'm not an expert, but can people for once try and see what I'm getting at instead of being sidetracked by the window dressing?

@Kash: So literary merit is debatable. That doesn't have much to do with what I'm talking about, TBH. People doing this imagined public service wouldn't be composing sonnets or writing short stories...they'd be doing hard manual labor or bottom-rung mental work. The fruits of which can be seen by anyone with a brain.

edited 23rd Jun '11 11:21:11 PM by drunkscriblerian

Try expressing it without reference to a specific disability. You could have just referred to a person with severe cognitive impairments. You think it's window dressing, I think it's a clear window to ignorance on your part.

And really, you think that manual labor is necessarily contributing, but overlook other labors. I don't think you're going to get agreement on useful labor either.

edited 23rd Jun '11 11:23:34 PM by blueharp

That's exactly what you're talking about, since we're disagreeing on the extent of the usefulness of a particular activity.

@blue: try seeing an example as just an example. Fair point; maybe we'll meet in the middle. Or rather, nevermind; you're bound and determined to paint me as an ignorant motherfucker, far be it from me to stand in your way.

@Kash: exactly what are you getting at? I'm officially confused now.

edited 23rd Jun '11 11:24:31 PM by drunkscriblerian

You're the one determined to stand by your example, when you could make a much fairer point with a single edit.

This is why prejudice is so hard to combat, when people get asked not to be prejudiced, they get all resentful at being attacked.

I dunno dude, that looks like an attack to me.

In any case, this is quibbling over semantics.

@blue: I'd rather continue from what I posted than ninja-edit and make you look like an asshole. Or alternately...you could read for comprehension instead of skim for ammunition. Yes, I used an example that (in hindsight) was probably not the best. But instead of reading and going for the concept you decided to latch onto a detail and spin an argument out of it.

All I'm saying is that this is an excellent example of what I mean by usefulness being difficult to define - you think that what I brought up scarcely belongs in the discussion because it's too literary and abstract, and I'm saying that it has tangible and important uses which have a function whether or not they are perceived by everyone.

I derive no use from someone labeling anti-depressants in a factory, but it serves some function to someone out there.

"I dunno dude, that looks like an attack to me."

Let's not start shit where there isn't any.

edited 23rd Jun '11 11:31:40 PM by kashchei

Really, pointing out that somebody is misinformed about a disability, and ignorantly attributing them all with a severe level of mental handicap is an attack?

That's one of the things that will make it hard to combat prejudice, if you can't even ask that somebody refine their examples a bit.

And I think you decided to get defensive at a criticism, rather than recognize that you chose a poor expression that is overly broad in how it represents the mental impairments of those with Down's Syndrome.

Perhaps you're not aware of the discrimination many of them have faced, but to me, it's quite upsetting that you describe them that way without realizing how unfair that is of you. I respect that it was most likely inadvertent on your part, but maybe in the future you can avoid it.

edited 23rd Jun '11 11:40:34 PM by blueharp

Limiting participation in society to only those who meet some arbitrary criteria for "useful" would undo the whole point of my proposal in the first place, by instituting a whole new set of classes for classism to be based on. Heinlein touched on that, as well, as I recall, with Taxpayers and Citizens both exhibiting extreme classism toward the other. Changing the reason for classism doesn't get rid of it; it only gives it a set of Groucho glasses to hide behind.

And I think we can all agree on how effective those are at disguising what's behind them.

Indeed, that's why voting should be available to all who are able to make their wishes clear. And every effort should be made to help people vote.

People can come up with criteria to exclude all too easily. Fair criteria is another matter.

@Maddie: Not quite what I meant; certainly the definition of "useful" can vary, but there are plenty of ways that just about anyone can serve a beneficial function to the State (when the goal is "prove your commitment") with enough elbow grease...if the system is designed well enough.

Of course, the devil is in the details, as always.

Simply handing out franchises hasn't really worked; I'd love to see a system where those that want them have to earn them somehow. Civic participation should be a privilege, not a right.

edited 23rd Jun '11 11:39:15 PM by drunkscriblerian

Did any physical work "Useful" ?

someone could argue it just make work for 100 people, created just for oldfolk can be sure that youngman " need to appreciate hardwork with his hand "instead of using bulldozer.

@Maddy: I've not read any Heinlein, so I'm not sure how he approached it, but I do believe that even severely disabled people (either mentally or physically so) can be "useful". For example, I ride the bus, and every Tuesday morning, a group of Life Skills students ride as well. The vast majority of them are physically/mentally handicapped, but they learn through experience by doing odd jobs at places like Goodwill. Sorting donations, organizing shelves, putting price stickers on things. Stuff like that.

I think that you'd be hard-pressed to find something that is unanimously considered unpractical (counting caterpillars aside).

Actually, I think I've got something.

If there were a way to get rid of stock market bullshit and things like that (IE that allow you to make shitloads of cash without DOING anything) there would be

• Less of a class divide

and

• Less rich dickweeds coasting on family money their entire lives.

One of the greatest contributors to classicism is the power that the upper class holds on our information sources. It's been proven time and time again that money plays a big part in winning elections to public office. Also, by controlling our mass media, much of our citizenry is mislead by false and sensationalist reporting.

In order to reduce classicism, the rich need to come under scrutiny and accountability. In addition, wealth needs to be shifted away from their ludicrously fat pockets. Inheritance should also be curbed to prevent de facto nobility from forming.

LOL! I just knew this topic would get hit with PC backwash, when I read Drunk's example (which is perfectly valid, BTW).

Western democracy is far from perfect but I'm not sure you could state "hasn't really worked". Actually I'm quite sure that voter restrictions are the worst in America as far as I know of the West and the United States is not exactly high on the scale of government competence. Just north of the border, even criminals have full suffrage. Aaand... there's still tough on crime bills going through parliament. (sadface)

At a time in the United States where they disenfranchise tens of thousands of blacks across the southern states under various rules, I don't think that talking about how voting is privilege really helps when it comes to class divide. I'm quite sure it does the reverse.

It doesn't matter what service or requirement you put in, it's only going to further feed classism. You're basing the rules of haves and have-nots differently but the haves don't lose any power over their capacity to restrict the rights of have-nots.

Society has to be designed to help everybody. No requirements for suffrage, it's universal. The problem is the government not spending enough time to make everyone better at voting.

If there's poverty then the government isn't doing it's job to equal out opportunities properly. Some people can be richer than others but it doesn't make sense to have poor people.

If people aren't educated enough then the government isn't doing it's job providing adequate public education. Some people may move into white collar jobs, some into blue collar jobs, some are research scientists, others are professionals and some are tradsmen and some are unskilled, but they should all be sufficiently intelligent and well educated enough to inter communicate without trouble and understand government processes.

edited 24th Jun '11 11:16:40 AM by breadloaf

There would also be less innovation, less technological progress, less efficiency, less material comfort, etc. Everybody would be poorer, but *maybe* there would be less wealth disparities (though when you look at pre-modern societies where everybody was poorer than now, that didn't go hand-in-hand with more equality)

To fight classism, much stronger labor unions are needed. Also, co-operative and freelance work should be encouraged. A focus towards promoting worker ownership and control of the means of production should be part of the strategy.

edited 24th Jun '11 2:26:36 PM by SavageHeathen

I gather something not entirely dissimilar to this exists in Finland, where men are given the option of performing civilian service as an alternative to military conscription. However, I gather there is a stigma attached to civilian service, and I'm not sure how severe that stigma is.