Caitlin Jenner under fire for being too conservative

[speakhandsforme]

Did you see the whole Zoey Tur/Ben Shapiro altercation when he called him "sir"? Reminded me very much of an internet debate.

I have not. And watching that sounds like just an awful experience.

Shapiro is an insufferable douche, though. That's really a matter of social tact given who Tur is, but it is what it is.

 

[dontsnitch]

I have not. And watching that sounds like just an awful experience.

Shapiro is an insufferable douche, though. That's really a matter of social tact given who Tur is, but it is what it is.

Haha, I guess you and I won't see eye-to-eye, I find Shapiro to be quite articulate, I find myself only disagreeing with his views on Israel foreign policy.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Haha, I guess you and I won't see eye-to-eye, I find Shapiro to be quite articulate, I find myself only disagreeing with his views on Israel foreign policy.

I think he's a smart guy and I'm admittedly not that well-versed on his justifications.

I just find his personality and demeanor to be really irritating. Like Piers Morgan or Adam Carolla.

 

[2GunTommy]

Yes, when necessary.



The offering of "why should I work? You know, I've got a few bucks, I've got my room paid for" promotes the tired myth about welfare recipients preferring not to work or spending comfortably (or even luxuriously) on the state's dime. I urge you to read those two links.

Also, no, I don't agree that that's a true statement, demonstrably speaking. In the Western world, higher entitlements actually correlate positively with worker participation. So, contrary to whatever one might suppose as common knowledge, people don't generally prefer welfare over employment and dependence is a complete and utter myth.



Persons of the LGBTQ community are disproportionately represented in the homeless population. This can be attributed to a number of things. I would more closely associate it with the harshness of gender role confusion than any sort of active or purposeful oppression by society. More plainly put, it's harder to be successful when you can't conform yourself to the standards of society.

But, on this topic, I would feel like I was misleading you if I didn't mention that the most overrepresented group in the homeless population by a wide margin, regardless of sexual orientation, are males. They're more likely to be black and they're more likely to be LGBTQ, but overall the biggest indicator is being a man.

See I dont think what he said was calling anyone lazy or anything negative at all. Its more a case of pointing out how some people can get "comfortable" receiving govt assistance and not working. Not because they are lazy or bad people but because its human nature. Give people what they need and motivation to move forward can decline. Also if I am getting govt funds and I figure out what i will make working 40 hrs a week at a low income job compared to what i get staying home in assistance, maybe its not a big difference or any difference at all in money gotten but one way I stay home and the other i have to work a menial job for 40 hrs a week. Which one would most choose ? Because they are lazy,bad people ? Or because they are human ?

So his judgement wasnt really falling on the recipients of govt funds but rather on the govt program and its creation dependence.So id say he could still be a good spokesperson for them. And for you to say that people becoming dependent is a complete and utter myth is absolutely insane. It will happen to anyone who is on social programs long enough. Human nature.

 

[lilelvis]

Yes, when necessary.



The offering of "why should I work? You know, I've got a few bucks, I've got my room paid for" promotes the tired myth about welfare recipients preferring not to work or spending comfortably (or even luxuriously) on the state's dime. I urge you to read those two links.

Also, no, I don't agree that that's a true statement, demonstrably speaking. In the Western world, higher entitlements actually correlate positively with worker participation. So, contrary to whatever one might suppose as common knowledge, people don't generally prefer welfare over employment and dependence is a complete and utter myth.



Persons of the LGBTQ community are disproportionately represented in the homeless population. This can be attributed to a number of things. I would more closely associate it with the harshness of gender role confusion than any sort of active or purposeful oppression by society. More plainly put, it's harder to be successful when you can't conform yourself to the standards of society.

But, on this topic, I would feel like I was misleading you if I didn't mention that the most overrepresented group in the homeless population by a wide margin, regardless of sexual orientation, are males. They're more likely to be black and they're more likely to be LGBTQ, but overall the biggest indicator is being a man.

Where can we donate to your sex change fund?

 

[dontsnitch]

I think he's a smart guy and I'm admittedly not that well-versed on his justifications.

I just find his personality and demeanor to be really irritating. Like Piers Morgan or Adam Carolla.

Haha, Carolla is such a good dude, but you're right, he's so irritating. I understand what you mean about Shaprio, part of my fascination with him is that he's a Conservative Jew who made a career out of writing at a young age, I think he's interesting.

 

[2GunTommy]

The discussion they were having was about how transgendered people are particularly vulnerable to poverty. Jenner obviously doesn't understand why that would be and just knee-jerked some standard conservative talking points. Obviously in her position, she doesn't understand a lot of the issues facing the community and would have a hard time speaking on its behalf. And that's all that was said about it, really.

Well maybe he understands the poverty situation a little better than they thought ? Maybe his assessment of the welfare situation is one that would help people free themselves of the long term dependence instead of institutionalizing them ? That sounds like someone who has their best interest in mind doesnt it ? Maybe he is a good spokesperson after all. Lets not pretend there isnt a valid case to be made as to how social programs can create dependency and institutionalization.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Where can we donate to your sex change fund?

How much do you make in annual income?

I have no qualms about taking money from dumb people, but I am opposed to taking from the poor.

 

[speakhandsforme]

See I dont think what he said was calling anyone lazy or anything negative at all. Its more a case of pointing out how some people can get "comfortable" receiving govt assistance and not working. Not because they are lazy or bad people but because its human nature. Give people what they need and motivation to move forward can decline. Also if I am getting govt funds and I figure out what i will make working 40 hrs a week at a low income job compared to what i get staying home in assistance, maybe its not a big difference or any difference at all in money gotten but one way I stay home and the other i have to work a menial job for 40 hrs a week. Which one would most choose ? Because they are lazy,bad people ? Or because they are human ?

Did you read any of the links I provided?

The fact that you would quit your job doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, most people don't. That is a fact, not an opinion. You can speculate that people would do that, but, at the macro level, they don't. So using that lie to frame the programs is wrong. What you consider common sense has been proven to be false.

So his judgement wasnt really falling on the recipients of govt funds but rather on the govt program and its creation dependence.So id say he could still be a good spokesperson for them. And for you to say that people becoming dependent is a complete and utter myth is absolutely insane. It will happen to anyone who is on social programs long enough. Human nature.

But, as we've established, the "creation dependence" doesn't exist. So she wouldn't be a great spokesperson, because she simply does not understand the basic facts about a social issue that the organization is passionate about.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well maybe he understands the poverty situation a little better than they thought ?

How? She's been rich for at least 40 years, right? She's clearly not reading on it. Did she even know that poverty was an issue in the community? It seems that all she knows about poverty she learned from Limbaugh or something.

Maybe his assessment of the welfare situation is one that would help people free themselves of the long term dependence instead of institutionalizing them ? That sounds like someone who has their best interest in mind doesnt it ? Maybe he is a good spokesperson after all. Lets not pretend there isnt a valid case to be made as to how social programs can create dependency and institutionalization.

LOL!

 

[Medusas Weave]

How much do you make in annual income?

I have no qualms about taking money from dumb people, but I am opposed to taking from the poor.

So you don't steal from your own and you think that makes you better than us???

 

[lilelvis]

How much do you make in annual income?

I have no qualms about taking money from dumb people, but I am opposed to taking from the poor.

I'm homeless and on welfare. But I panhandled $12.00 today, and would gladly donate it to your cause.
Planned parenthood cut my dick off this morning for free, but the follow up treatment is less than I expected. They gave me free pads for the bleeding but didn't offer anything for how sore my tits are from the free hormone injections. Good news: they had a run on baby livers (outdated) so I had a descent lunch for $2.00.
It's only the 4th, so I still have $76.13 in my EBT account. That goes along way because I have no bills. Believe you me, $12.00 is a light day panhandling around here. (Tuesday is always slow) so it's not killing me to help you out.
I can send it to you, or give it to the church if you would prefer.

 

[2GunTommy]

Did you read any of the links I provided?

The fact that you would quit your job doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, most people don't. That is a fact, not an opinion. You can speculate that people would do that, but, at the macro level, they don't. So using that lie to frame the programs is wrong. What you consider common sense has been proven to be false.



But, as we've established, the "creation dependence" doesn't exist. So she wouldn't be a great spokesperson, because she simply does not understand the basic facts about a social issue that the organization is passionate about.

Didnt read links yet. cant right now but i cant imagine a valid study denying any dependence created. Will read in a bit.

 

[Perfidious]

It wasn't intense. And I wouldn't even credit myself as a winner.

But I'd definitely credit you as a loser. You used a word that had a definition that betrayed your intended point. You tried to cover that up by throwing out an insult and calling someone a freak. And then you completely tucked your dick (not unlike a pre-op Cait Jenner, I would presume) and disengaged.

Don't be mad at me. Be mad at you.

I didnt care enough to play semantics. You completely understood what I meant. Trannies aren't that serious to me. But you know, when you Googled enabling in an attempt to pwn me you should have looked further than the definition. For example, one of the first results is this
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-anatomy-addiction/201207/are-you-empowering-or-enabling

In one sense,

 

[2GunTommy]

How? She's been rich for at least 40 years, right? She's clearly not reading on it. Did she even know that poverty was an issue in the community? It seems that all she knows about poverty she learned from Limbaugh or something.



LOL!

Rich people cant understand the possible effects of social programs ? Im not saying he does,but Id say its possible for someone who is rich to understand.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Rich people cant understand the possible effects of social programs ? Im not saying he does,but Id say its possible for someone who is rich to understand.

It's possible, but is there any sign that he does? Has he talked to people and studied the stats?

 

[speakhandsforme]

I'm homeless and on welfare. But I panhandled $12.00 today, and would gladly donate it to your cause.
Planned parenthood cut my dick off this morning for free, but the follow up treatment is less than I expected. They gave me free pads for the bleeding but didn't offer anything for how sore my tits are from the free hormone injections. Good news: they had a run on baby livers (outdated) so I had a descent lunch for $2.00.
It's only the 4th, so I still have $76.13 in my EBT account. That goes along way because I have no bills. Believe you me, $12.00 is a light day panhandling around here. (Tuesday is always slow) so it's not killing me to help you out.
I can send it to you, or give it to the church if you would prefer.

Solid read.

Didnt read links yet. cant right now but i cant imagine a valid study denying any dependence created. Will read in a bit.

Awesome. But, yes, those studies are certainly valid and have been recreated several times. The fact of the matter is that people want to have utility. Being a lazy sponge doesn't have the intrinsic payout people daftly ascribe to it. If you give people means to achieve, their desire to do so increases.

I didnt care enough to play semantics. You completely understood what I meant. Trannies aren't that serious to me. But you know, when you Googled enabling in an attempt to pwn me you should have looked further than the definition. For example, one of the first results is this
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-anatomy-addiction/201207/are-you-empowering-or-enabling


They certainly understand what I mean.

And you'd see synonyms for enable according to Google are "make able" "empower" and "give the means"

Give the means is an important one, because trannies couldn't pretend to be the opposite gender without people like you playing along.

Really it is sad you'd resort to this to get at someone with a different opinion. I'm sure this works on lesser people but it really is a cheap trick. Seeing you post like this reminds me of MMA foot stompers. It's just really gay (oh look, I misused a word) to watch and only technically acceptable.

Yes, I knew what you meant. No matter what interpretation of the word you choose to cite, it doesn't fit your argument. You're arguing that the personal identity or physical composition of someone who I will ever know is something that I can actively reinforce. Disregarding the logistics of actually doing that, why in the utter hell should I (or you) presume to have any dominion or influence over that?

Also, I'll throw a hefty lol @ "I'm sure this works on lesser people".

Who do you suppose would represent the stratum beneath you? Who are these people to whom I could better condescend? Even within the subset of guys similar to you, at least Atheist is fairly well-read and pwent is fairly articulate. The only thing I can say about you is that I recall you referring to a black poster as "a colored": a grand example of the many posts that people here don't dignify with responses.

 

[Perfidious]

It's amazing how much you know about me and how little I know of you.

 

[lilelvis]

Solid read.



Awesome. But, yes, those studies are certainly valid and have been recreated several times. The fact of the matter is that people want to have utility. Being a lazy sponge doesn't have the intrinsic payout people daftly ascribe to it. If you give people means to achieve, their desire to do so increases.



Yes, I knew what you meant. No matter what interpretation of the word you choose to cite, it doesn't fit your argument. You're arguing that the personal identity or physical composition of someone who I will ever know is something that I can actively reinforce. Disregarding the logistics of actually doing that, why in the utter hell should I (or you) presume to have any dominion or influence over that?

Also, I'll throw a hefty lol @ "I'm sure this works on lesser people".

Who do you suppose would represent the stratum beneath you? Who are these people to whom I could better condescend? Even within the subset of guys similar to you, at least Atheist is fairly well-read and pwent is fairly articulate. The only thing I can say about you is that I recall you referring to a black poster as "a colored": a grand example of the many posts that people here don't dignify with responses.

I know. Shit was funny.

 

[lilelvis]

It's possible, but is there any sign that he does? Has he talked to people and studied the stats?

It only seems possible for rich, self proclaimed enlightened, douche nozzles who don't really interact with anybody poor, but read the stats and the studies and think they know the poor.
Most of the people on welfare agree with Jenner, and despise the welfare riders. They are thankful that welfare is there, but understand the effect social programs are having on their neighbors and, most importantly, their kids. Most agree with Jenner, it makes people less than ambitious. Regardless of the ivy league argument and the stats, it is really apparent in the real world that the effects of social programs are not all positive.

It's not rocket surgery to know the truth if you live in it.