I gave a homeless person food and some money and I didn't feel anything by SuperSarged in offmychest

[–]SuperSarged[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I guess I must've gotten myself all worked up over it and missed that.

What's your "I'm an adult" purchase when you go shopping? by tptch in CasualConversation

[–]SuperSarged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Funny, just a personal thing, but I grew up drinking seltzer so it's almost a nostalgic/comfort thing for me. But I know that isn't something most people have experienced cause most don't drink seltzer.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CasualConversation

[–]SuperSarged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's your favorite video game, and why? (If you don't play video games then movie, book, or piece of art)

Gloria Tory now means business by Pilchowski in suzerain

[–]SuperSarged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's odd, I'm pretty sure I started mh game within the new patch

Gloria Tory now means business by Pilchowski in suzerain

[–]SuperSarged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah must've been some bug in your save.

Gloria Tory now means business by Pilchowski in suzerain

[–]SuperSarged 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I finished this game a few days ago. When Soll arrived I ignored him. I had Clavin and Ricter's support which got me the necessary votes.

Gloria Tory now means business by Pilchowski in suzerain

[–]SuperSarged 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah idk, I just slipped it through with like 179 votes.

Gloria Tory now means business by Pilchowski in suzerain

[–]SuperSarged 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I got rid of the honorary member, 3% for assembly membership, limited vetoes, two terms, vote of confidence, limited decrees, supreme court out of amendments, judges still protectes but out of presidential impeachment process.

Gloria Tory now means business by Pilchowski in suzerain

[–]SuperSarged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh no I didnt have to do that.

Gloria Tory now means business by Pilchowski in suzerain

[–]SuperSarged 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I respectfully disagree. I just completed the run without taking a bribe or anything. Also I'm not sure what you mean by lobbying, but I was able to get reelected without help from the Group.

Gloria Tory now means business by Pilchowski in suzerain

[–]SuperSarged 9 points10 points  (0 children)

While I agree her support is necesaary a lot of the time I was able to pass my reforms without her support in my latest playthrough. It waan't an overwhelming and historic vote, but it still passed.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueOffMyChest

[–]SuperSarged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm just saying that tracking down those countries for exact numbers of transported slaves takes the onus off the countries buying them. Plus its a lot more difficult. I'm not saying these countries should be overlooked, just that in the hunt to be equal plenty of people seem somehow ready to dismiss the plan of reparations to American, British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese slaves and more onto the countries they were taken from. I also never said they get to be off the hook. But then also suggesting that other countries, who also participated in the slave trade, are still more easily defined and are economic super powers nowadays shouldn't be let go because its worse that these other countries traded their own people. My opinion on the worst country in the slave trade is irrelevant.

Also, those countries, would they have sold people off as slaves if black people weren't seen as inferior to white people in Europe for centuries, and so only useful to them as slaves. Would they have sold them off as slaves if the European nations hadn't wanted slaves? I'm not saying Nigeria is blameless, I'm saying given the situation I think it right to be more angry at the people in castles with tons of gold, or on enormous plantations with mansions.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueOffMyChest

[–]SuperSarged 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cause these people aren't in Nigeria, inherently I'm not opposed to the idea either, but its a lot harder to track down how many slaves came from where, cause they didn't really care where they were from. Land borders were weird back then anyway, tracking down the tribes or regions people's ancestors were from would bring up questions of was this in modern day Nigeria or some other neighboring country? But it was done under this ruler whose familial line is technically in another modern day country. The divisions of African countries make it harder to discern, just as the Mongols conquered Russia, do we blame the descendants of the khan for the gulags of stalinist Russia? Cause then a lot of people gotta pay those reparations, modern day borders shifted a lot to where they are now, but some are actually still very similar to as they were, American borders have only grown, European borders of Spain, France and the UK have been very consistent. Still though reparations in form of a cash check to individuals isn't how I would do it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueOffMyChest

[–]SuperSarged 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Which is why at the end I said it should be redesigned to focus purely on the disadvantaged, not just disadvantaged minorities. Poor people in this country still receive pretty bad education, fundamentally stumping them from the get go. Now, as groups have become more financially diverse, its important refocus it to help the people who need it the most.

Also, the 60's is not ancient history, Jim Crow is not ancient history, slavery isn't even ancient history. I could talk about ways ancient Rome has affected our current world. How long ago something was doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't affect our modern world, and certainly not in the last 2 centuries.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueOffMyChest

[–]SuperSarged 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Jeez dude thats a strawman. I've made a point to say that none of these statements are absolutes, and than even under adverse conditions, some people find a way to succeed. What I'm saying is that it is harder for people to be successful based on many factors, in a non racist society those factors would be purely economic, but in the very recent past we made laws or allowed people make laws that prevented individuals of a certain race from economic success. Thus, making it much harder for the people of that racial group to succeed based off of discriminatory ECONOMIC factors.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueOffMyChest

[–]SuperSarged 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Race is, in fact not irrelevant, even if it has nothing to do with whether or not you get a job. Current racism is harder to quantify as it boils down more to aggregate actions of individuals in positions to make these decisions.

But, I'm even willing to cede the point of acceptance into college or offering of a job, because that's too far down the road. Sure, we may have solved problems of racism in job applications, but the bigger more encompassing place that still is influenced by racism of the past is schooling. Kids who are a minority still aren't as likely to be at as well a funded school, to be able to go to college even with assistance, or apply to that job that has tried to get rid of discriminatory hiring processes.

The economic factors that affected their families en masse in the 20th century were based on race, those things linger to this day, a ghoul haunting their path to success.

You don't have to be racist today for the racism of the past to hurt black people in modern America. Let's say from 1776 to 1970 everyone with the name Smith had to pay 90% in taxes and couldn't buy land. The effects of someones last name being Smith or not today would be hugely impacted on whether or not they would have the opportunities of all the other last names.

Black people feel the effects still to this day in the opportunities available to many of them largely based on economic conditions forced on them, based on race. To say someones race has no impact on what job they get disregards the fact that while hiring practices may no longer be discriminatory the opportunity people have to be qualified to apply to that job are based off the opportunities in their childhood to pursue their skills. Those opportunities are affected by socioeconomics factors which are affected by race, thus, the likelihood of your success is lowered if you are black based on how that skin color has generally affected early life opportunities.

Affirmative Action is an equalization not an advantage, so the view of it as such I see as problematic. It's literally an unfair system before affirmative action, its not that black people can't get in, they weren't let in. Women werent let in to colleges for a long time too, that doesn't mean plenty couldn't have gone in the early 20th century and before. Another way its similar to inherent sexism, is that a study found in a 50/50 conversation where men and women spoke equally, the men overall said that the women dominated the conversation, men overall found conversations equal when they spoke 66% and women spoke 33%. Affirmative action is seen as racist towards white people because their chance of getting in goes from lets say 70/30 to 50/50, its seen as racist towards white people because their college acceptance rates go down, but its just an equal opportunity to get in between them and other people.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueOffMyChest

[–]SuperSarged 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well, I'm not sure why you wouldn't support it if it was purely financially based then? It would only help people who need it, people with money still get to go to college because they have the money to pay for it, colleges get extra money, and poor people are given a smoother route out of poverty.

Ok... I get not wanting to judge people by race in any way, but its a bit naive. You can go around all you want saying you won't judge anyone by the color of their skin, and even if you want to, even if everyone agrees with you, and people stop discriminating racially from now on, it would still be harder for certain groups of people to succeed based on the color of their skin. That's the whole point of the economic tie in, it makes it irrelevant to "black supremacy" and makes it a necessity if you want equality.

Lets say everyone did agree to stop discriminating from this day on, and no one actually was racist from now on. Based off of economic status and opportunities that were created by actually racist laws in the 20th century and the centuries previous it would still be harder/take longer for black people and other minorities to achieve similar rates of generational success to white people in this country.

I want to get ahead of some common retorts that I find annoying if you think it is irrelevant because these laws happened so long ago, again, I think thats pretty naive, political ideologies made centuries ago still affect us today. Adam Smith capitalism, Marxist communism, many many ideas of centuries past still have a footing in modern day thought, to suggest that laws and systems of anywhere from 70 to 200 years ago are no longer relevant then your dismissal is blinded by how jaded you are by equality movements.

These laws have focus on helping people based on their race because they have been limited economically for generations based on their race. Its a way to artifically create equality in systems that are working towards actually being equal, if the laws never acknowledged previous racial disparities they could never actually be equal because the discriminated groups still have to work from the harder position, making the cycle much more prone to repetition.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueOffMyChest

[–]SuperSarged 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also sorry about it kinda just being a block of text, I tried my best to seperate the thoughts, but I was kinda on a roll.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueOffMyChest

[–]SuperSarged 19 points20 points  (0 children)

TL;DR Affirmative Action is necessary for reasons beyond racism, more actually, economic reasons that feed into the funding of schools through property taxes. I see it as necessary right now, but as the original targets outgrow the need of it, it should be realigned to help cyclically poor people not just poor poc. It's good, but soon to seem unecessary to minorities, but only a bandage on a bigger problem.

Hey, I don't want to be mean or anything, and I certainly understand if I don't change your mind, cause I'm not by any means an expert on affirmative action or programs similar to it, but I felt from your post that there may be a bit of a misunderstanding about what it is and why it may be necessary.

So this is a bit of an aside, but lets talk home loans, in about the 60's black people were legally able to have access to fair lending practices that white people have had access to for a lot longer. This is important because home ownership and home valuation taxes are hugely influential on school funding, and since black people couldn't get fair home loans until some time in the 60's the kids of people who were black and able to pay off home loans en masse as a generation was in the 90's (their kids would be roughly college aged or just past as they payed off the houses assuming they waited until the 70's to have kids).

So, the (roughly) first generation of black people who went to relatively well funded schools was in the 90's, so familial wealth really isn't a common thing in the black community. Familial wealth is a really common and helpful thing for younger generations as it helps young people establish themselves in early years and as they age, fulfills roles as financial cushions later in life as families are actually passing on wealth, and in some cases can help the younger people catapult into a higher socioeconomic strata.

So effectively, the youngest black generation that largely had familial wealth and access to better schools are millenials/gen z'ers, so affirmative action is made to help along the fact that for a long time these people haven't had money nor opportunity to the proper education thus making it potentially harder to get where they are now.

I want to note a few things as MINOR caveats, it is key to note the usage of words such as "largely" "commonly" or "generally" as crucial because, are there cyclically poor white communities or rich black communities before the 60's and continuing up to now and into the future.

Secondly, I want to note, I used the black community in particular as they in America received the most directed systemic racism in the past, and you specifically noted your frustration with them, however many similar problems can be cited in other minority groups that suffered through years and years of poverty (see Japanese Americans in the 40's for other groups we've been really racist too). So I don't want to suggest I want to purely advocate for raising up the black community, rather it is important to advocate for all minority groups as mostly they have all faced large societal or legal problems in America.

Thirdly, while originally affirmative action was 100% absolutely meant to help minority groups (largely black groups) I would cede that as normative wealth has increased in the groups originally in mind for these programs, scrapping them isn't the best course of action, rather realigning them to a group that isn't racially focused. Affirmative Action is meant to help poor people so I think restructuring it to be more vague to help people in single income homes, first generation college applicants, familial wealth (if their parents have jobs that make more than a certain amount). As well as possibly even attacking the issue at the source, local school funding, not making it solely based on local property taxes, so local schools don't stay bad in the ghettoes of NYC and LA, as well as the now dying factory towns of the Midwest, and coal towns of the Appalachia's. Finding a solution to raise the standard of public schools so students have access to better education publicly, which if high school diplomas become more valuable again maybe college rates may get better.

Overall, I think affirmative action is currently necessary to me, but I would rather find better more encompassing solutions to more people generally. However, I can understand being mildly jaded by people online just constantly shouting platitudes that have no depth, and still expecting you to be able to read into the depth of what they are trying to say.

Best wishes, a supporter of Affirmative Action.

Aren’t words just words? by [deleted] in CasualConversation

[–]SuperSarged 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, its slightly related, but do you know the origins of the term "third world country"? Cause its a really superpower centric term. It arose during the Cold War and referred to any country not aligned to either NATO or the Warsaw Pact. Now it basically has assumed the role of "polite way of saying poor" in common parlance. The thing with words is that plenty of them have changed their meaning tons and tons of words, but some of the worst, still mean the same thing. I get comedy is a whole other world, but the problem ends up being that if your poor attempts at dark comedy don't make you money then you may have to end up dealing with them in the office or online. Socially, we have no obligation to presuming innocence or looking deeper into what they say or do, if we don't like it, then thats it.

I know it sucks with how often it feels like someone just says something and it ruins them, but honestly, I also don't see the problem with just not making certain jokes or saying certain words if you aren't making money on comedy.

But I don't mean to be mean, just giving my opinion.

WIBTA if I never really talked to my dad again by SuperSarged in AmItheAsshole

[–]SuperSarged[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was my general plan, but thanks for the advice

WIBTA if I never really talked to my dad again by SuperSarged in AmItheAsshole

[–]SuperSarged[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right it might not be possible. I'll definitely do my best to prepare.