DescentBB

because, it is, in essence SO true:
http://imgur.com/gallery/h82vC

The American Dream is to be able to provide what 'Richards' parents did.

Do you have any way to fix that without mandating a reduction of every child's future down to the lowest common denominator because it would technically be more 'fair'?

Will Robinson wrote:Do you have any way to fix that without mandating a reduction of every child's future down to the lowest common denominator because it would technically be more 'fair'?

Yes, it's called raising the lowest common denominator. Conservative capitalists in the US aren't interested in that. Works great in other countries though.

sure, there are plenty of ways to get there. I'm sure that many will be posted in the following 6 or 7 days. If not, I'll enlighten you when I get back from the mountains. If you buy into that 'American Dream' BS, I have a few bridges to sell you.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Do you have any way to fix that without mandating a reduction of every child's future down to the lowest common denominator because it would technically be more 'fair'?

Yes, it's called raising the lowest common denominator. Conservative capitalists in the US aren't interested in that. Works great in other countries though.

I was asking for something with more substance and detail than a Miss America contestant's wishing for world peace.

I cite a well known sentiment when I refrence the 'American Dream'
So you can include rewriting history....reams of history and literature in fact in order to make me wrong on that point along with delivering your master plan to save the country from capitalists like yourself.

Clearly Richard's success is due to the fact he's been 50 years old since he was born.

Should be on “a” plate…

Must have gotten that second rate education.

Will Robinson wrote:The American Dream is to be able to provide what 'Richards' parents did.

You mean raise someone to feel entitlement? What a great dream!

I know a lot of people who feel entitlement.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The American Dream is to be able to provide what 'Richards' parents did.

You mean raise someone to feel entitlement? What a great dream!

Your prejudice and/or kool-aid consumption has led you to assign that motive with no evidence to support it. What a great guy you are.

Will Robinson wrote:Your prejudice and/or kool-aid consumption has led you to assign that motive with no evidence to support it. What a great guy you are.

I'm just explaining to you what's in the comic. No Kool-Aid® needed.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Your prejudice and/or kool-aid consumption has led you to assign that motive with no evidence to support it. What a great guy you are.

I'm just explaining to you what's in the comic. No Kool-Aid® needed.

So when you were criticizing me for suggesting that providing a bright future for our children is a part of "the American Dream"...that was in the comic where?
You are the one who needed to tie the two together so you could criticize what I was talking about.

callmeslick wrote:because, it is, in essence SO true:
http://imgur.com/gallery/h82vC

When I posted this:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=22067

Some of you scoffed. Here we have slick posting in essence how bad it is for kids to have unfair advantages because of birth. The idea of limiting these unfair advantages has begun. Think it won't happen? With people like slick promoting it, the attack is on.

What I got from that strip was the wealthy dude had a bad attitude, not that having advantage was bad.

Of course you could also make a strip that highlighted some of the bad attitudes that have an affect on the disadvantaged as well, but that wouldn’t be PC.

Also there are so many things wrong in that strip, I really wouldn’t know where to begin. (fantasy, generalizations…ehhh…no point)

It's amazing how a simple concept in a comic is lost on so many people. I mean, it's already got pictures. Can we dumb it down here any more? Maybe a coloring book will help?

Yeah. That strip is bull★■◆●. Just entertainment for the weak-between-the-ears. In the real world it doesn't mean a damn thing what you put into results--it is only the results that matter. Why should anyone receive more credit for putting more work into the same result? Or less of a result! This is what the working world is all about. That and dealing with "people", which is a major hurdle. It's important for the strength of a society that people own the consequences of their choices in life, because what leads to these consequences can be very complicated (and we'll usually never agree on causality), and their will is without a doubt the ultimate determining factor.

vision wrote:It's amazing how a simple concept in a comic is lost on so many people. I mean, it's already got pictures. Can we dumb it down here any more? Maybe a coloring book will help?

When people don't agree with the representation of a concept it doesn't mean they don't understand it. It means they find fault in it so their commentary is removed from the circle-jerk rah rah that would give you the warm fuzzy feelings of belonging to something powerful.

I know it isn't popular to point out the flaw in the clique's logic but some of us don't care about approval from the clique or care about the discomfort our comments bring you.

Spidey wrote:See, that’s exactly what’s wrong with debate these days, challenge someone’s opinions and it becomes an attack or racism…or some such.

Respect is hard. Acknowledging the validity of differing opinion is anathema, for it produces vulnerability in ones own guarded perspective. As if guarding rather than challenging ones own perspective makes it more valid.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Yeah. That strip is ****. Just entertainment for the weak-between-the-ears.

"Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple." I think the point of the comic is to illustrate this simple idea. That priveledge is a self-reinforcing actor against meritocracy.

Vander wrote:[...
"Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple." I think the point of the comic is to illustrate this simple idea. That priveledge is a self-reinforcing actor against meritocracy.

Yes, that is true. And it is nothing remarkable if you consider there have always been a fraction of people in any culture who think/act that way. It seems to me the comic had a lot of weak sauce oozing from it and so it got the proper response.

And that response has drawn out the reaction akin to posting a partisan political bumper sticker and expressing incredulity when a mass epiphany doesn't take place.

Anybody notice “white privilege” didn’t seem to kick in for Paula.

Will Robinson wrote:it is nothing remarkable if you consider there have always been a fraction of people in any culture who think/act that way.

I think the point is that it's not always considered. And indeed, the privileged and affluent, the target of the commentary, are typically those with great societal influence.

It's a bumper sticker, no doubt. But "Sh!t Happens" is also a valid concept to understand.

Vander wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Yeah. That strip is ****. Just entertainment for the weak-between-the-ears.

"Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple." I think the point of the comic is to illustrate this simple idea. That priveledge is a self-reinforcing actor against meritocracy.

Vander that's a valid point, but the comic crosses some very queer terrain to get there. This comic is not about illustrating anything simple--there's too much at play for that. I have to say that the author is operating from a compromised POV. In every panel I find problems with what is presented as effect to an overly simplistic cause, while all kinds of realities are glazed over. This comic is total liberal trash.

So do tell Thorne, what vast over-arching life experience do you have to accurately comment on the author's POV? I've seen you make statements like this before, but you always seem to gloss over the real-world foundation behind them. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my almost-30 years spinning around on this rock, what I've seen points to this comic being pretty damn accurate.

second strip wrote:

First off, my perspective is that of someone who comes from a "disadvantaged family"...

Second strip, first panel: Here it's not all Paula's "will" we're dealing with. Her parents didn't have to work two jobs and leave her to be raised by the television, as we're seeing. A lot of people do it. My parents didn't. It's not good for the child--it's not in their best interest. Working all of the time is not something you do purely for your child, and even if you think it is you have a responsibility to determine whether leaving them to be raised by random influences is actually in their best interest. My dad worked so that my mom could stay home with my brothers and sisters and I (she worked a little for a while), and they made that work, financially. We were by no means spoiled growing up, but we had what we needed and our parents were there. My dad also spent a great deal of his spare time with his family, rather than with trivial pursuits. That's something I remember growing up that was different from my friend's families.

2nd Panel: Same thing--my parents chose to home-school us. I think it's safe to say that they weren't brilliantly suited to the task, but the resources were out there for the finding. It is a parent's choice to allow the state of schools to be a determining factor for their children... or to home-school, or to private school, ...

3rd Panel: ...WTF Somehow disadvantaged families are boneheads who think "B" is good? What about wanting something better for your children? No, it's "B? Let's talk about the subject matter...". This is also the parent's choice, and does not tie into economic advantage. Maybe thinking "B" is okay ties ultimately itself into economic status (for sure), but not the other way around.

So you see I'm not placing the responsibility on Paula from the cradle, but even during these times Paula's will comes into play as she may catch glimpses of something good and be faced with a decision--whether to work for it or settle for easier more immediate enjoyment in life.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Second strip, first panel: Here it's not all Paula's "will" we're dealing with. Her parents didn't have to work two jobs and leave her to be raised by the television, as we're seeing. A lot of people do it. My parents didn't. It's not good for the child--it's not in their best interest. Working all of the time is not something you do purely for your child, and even if you think it is you have a responsibility to determine whether leaving them to be raised by random influences is actually in their best interest. My dad worked so that my mom could stay home with my brothers and sisters and I (she worked a little for a while), and they made that work, financially. We were by no means spoiled growing up, but we had what we needed and our parents were there. My dad also spent a great deal of his spare time with his family, rather than with trivial pursuits. That's something I remember growing up that was different from my friend's families.

So basically your parents had the luxury of being able to get by on a single-parent salary during their primary child-raising years (as did mine), and thus that means that everyone can? I'm sorry, but this is simply unrealistic. There are many, many situations where both parents need to work just to keep food on the table and a roof over their families' heads; that's true now more than ever with how wage growth has stagnated vs. inflation over the past few decades. The "choice" many parents have is whether to stay home with their kids or even have a home for a kids in the first place. It sucks, I agree, but that's life. Sometimes you have to make those compromises just to get by.

2nd Panel: Same thing--my parents chose to home-school us. I think it's safe to say that they weren't brilliantly suited to the task, but the resources were out there for the finding. It is a parent's choice to allow the state of schools to be a determining factor for their children... or to home-school, or to private school, ...

Again, this only works if one has the luxury of having a parent stay at home. And private school is right out unless you're one of the fortunate few to get an academic scholarship or have some sort of financial aid available, or else live in an area that provides tuition vouchers. The vast majority of parents don't send their kids to underachieving schools because they want to...it's the only choice they have.

(I also tend to be wary of home-schooling as a whole: it's a great concept, but in too many cases I fear it's used by parents to feed their children inaccurate information, without any chance of oversight.)

3rd Panel: ...WTF Somehow disadvantaged families are boneheads who think "B" is good? What about wanting something better for your children? No, it's "B? Let's talk about the subject matter...". This is also the parent's choice, and does not tie into economic advantage. Maybe thinking "B" is okay ties ultimately itself into economic status (for sure), but not the other way around.

I think the point here was that Paula's family didn't have the means to give Paula any sort of specific extracurricular help, so even if they hadn't been satisfied with her grades their options were limited to help her. But putting that aside for a moment, as a teacher myself, I can tell you straight up that for many students, a B average is most definitely a worthy accomplishment. Not every child excels in every single subject, but if they're working hard to the best of their ability and wind up with B's, then they've done their best, and I'm satisfied with that. And speaking from personal experience, in many ways they may wind up being better off in the long run than the straight-A student who never had to work hard for his grades and thus never developed a strong set of study skills. Those letters and numbers that you get wind up meaning far less in life than the abilities you honed to get them.

So you see I'm not placing the responsibility on Paula from the cradle, but even during these times Paula's will comes into play as she may catch glimpses of something good and be faced with a decision--whether to work for it or settle for easier more immediate enjoyment in life.

From what I can see, Paula was working pretty damn hard, but she wasn't able to completely overcome how heavily the deck was stacked against her from the start. Unfortunately that's an all-too-common occurrence today.

A bunch of glorified opinion there masquerading as limitations, TG. I call bull**** on all of it. And as for the part about skills being more important than "A"s... no ★■◆●, but an "A" means you're doing well and a "B" means not so well. I won't make more of it than that. "A" is the goal, not "B". People will get "B"s, but parents are not limited by finances from dealing with "B"s as less than great.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...Paula's will comes into play as she may catch glimpses of something good and be faced with a decision--whether to work for it or settle for easier more immediate enjoyment in life.

I see you conveniently left out the following panels where she does exactly that. Studying for while working, presumably to support herself and, by the look of the next panel, at least one of her sick parents. Taking the easy way out to enjoy life, huh? Sounds like a real blast. Moron.

Maybe you came back in after the ninja mod, Vision. We were talking about the 2nd strip... You're taking my comment out of context.

If someone really wanted to stress reality, there would have to be the strip where Paula does make it and the strip where Paula doesn’t even bother trying.

Just to be fair, but of course that’s not the objective here…is it.

One simple slice reality does not make.

There are two opposite errors people in this thread are falling in to. One is to say, in essence, "there's no truth whatsoever to this comic." It's to say that differences in upbringing don't affect ones' opportunities or position in adulthood. The other is to say, in essence, "this comic is gospel truth." It's to say that differences in upbringing are the dominant factor in adulthood, and that Paula's parents could not have done any better.

We know that differences in upbringing have a significant effect on outcomes for adults. Factors like financial stability, community stability (living in the same neighborhood for a long time, having long-time friends, stuff like that), having two parents present, going to schools that are well-staffed and have funding for extracurriculars, routine medical care, nutrition, and so on and so forth... these all matter. If you take two identical twins, separate them at birth for adoption, and place them with families that are drastically different on these fronts, they'll have differences in adulthood. But not nearly as drastic as you might think. Studies of actual separated-at-birth twins, placed in wildly different homes, show that the more privileged twin ends up better off, but not by as much as the difference in households would imply -- they tend to both move toward "average", with one remaining above and the other remaining below. So all this stuff matters, but not as much as a naive reading of this comic implies. And there's certainly room for both government and charity trying to help children growing up in poverty have better access to the things that will help them succeed as adults.

On the other side of it, this comic suggests that Paula's parents are doing everything they can for her, while at the same time implying she's spending the majority of her time watching television. Have they never heard of a library? Aren't there books from school she could be reading? Don't they have friends and neighbors -- kids she could be playing with, friends' parents she could be asking to help with her homework when she comes over, stuff like that? The inner-city school I worked at last year had a free after school program that included tutoring, dinner (for parents and siblings too!), and a wide variety of enriching activities. The library is completely free. There are families that take advantage of those things, and families that just let their kid sit at home watching television all day; let's not act like the family doing the latter is "doing anything for their baby".

Homeschoolers have never had the glorious experience of going through the school of hard knocks, walking to and from the bus stop in horrid weather, sitting still for long periods at a time listening to some teacher try to fill their brains with just a smidgen of knowledge, put up with peer pressure from their classmates, deal with bullying and violence directed at them by entire group of their peers. They also never had to follow orders or instructions by someone other than their parents either. Kids can only learn this stuff outside of the cloistered walls of their homes, out of reach and the protection of their parents. To truly learn about the world, one needs to be taught outside the home and fully immersed in the world around them, warts and all.

"Homeschoolers have never had the glorious experience of going through the school of hard knocks"

That is what all of the other things are for, like The Boy Scouts and Soccer Club.

I’m not real big on home schooling, but on the other hand I’m not against it either, and all of those “improper” socializing excuses just don’t cut the muster.

Personally I’m for getting an education at a formal school, then getting supplemental schooling from your parents. One of the coolest things I had as a child was my Show’N Tell.

Oh, Boy Scouts and Soccer Club are the school of hard knocks, eh? Uh huh. Sure. Both of those are highly structured group activities with kids that want to be involved doing those particular activities. Not exactly the wild west of the public school classroom, the playground, or even the bus ride or walk to and from school.

Public school is "supposed" to highly structured too, but the kids have other ideas most of the time, little monsters. In a perfect world, school would be a place of learning and achievement, not boredom, harassment and fear. I hated going to school and it wasn't for not wanting to learn something. As for having the parents do some teaching, God I wish. My parents rarely, if ever, took the time out of their busy schedules to bother teaching me or my siblings anything from textbooks, not that they knew much anyway. Help with homework? Nope. That's what school was for, not a job for the parents.

But don't most deeply religious people tend to be anti-intellectual TG?

Wow Lothar, you have no idea what you are talking about and your post shows it.

Lothar wrote:We know that differences in upbringing have a significant effect on outcomes for adults.

Lothar wrote:If you take two identical twins, separate them at birth for adoption, and place them with families that are drastically different on these fronts, they'll have differences in adulthood. But not nearly as drastic as you might think.

So which is it? Does upbringing have a "significant" effect, or in the case of twins, is everyone destined to grow up a certain way? I think you need to figure out where you stand before ratting off contradictory nonsense.

Lothar wrote:T...let's not act like the family doing the latter is "doing anything for their baby".

This is classic failure to see the forest for the trees. The point of the comic is that, in general, people who experience success will often attribute it to their own hard work without acknowledging their privileges. It contributes to the exact same thinking you expressed here, that the female character's parents did not work hard enough to provide for their daughter even though it is implied that they did (her parents working two jobs just to survive, and the father perhaps working himself to death). Playing the "would have, could have, should have" game distances you from the reality underprivileged people face.

Ok, I guess I misunderstood you tc, are you saying that a screwed up educational experience is preferred, like some kind of rite of passage, or something?

......................

vision wrote:The point of the comic is that, in general, people who experience success will often attribute it to their own hard work without acknowledging their privileges.

And without hard work all the privilege in the world won’t get you ★■◆●, so if the point is simply acknowledging you had advantage, I don’t see anything here other than whining.

You know I keep looking for the moral to the story here, and all I keep coming up with is…

Some people are real assholes and Paula was wasting her time, and never should have tried in the first place.

Is the message really as weak as some people won’t admit to having advantage…really…that’s pretty weak in the scheme of things, I would expect some kind of positive message at the end.

vision wrote: The point of the comic is that, in general, people who experience success

You first need to define success.

Spidey wrote:...the point is simply acknowledging you had advantage...

It's not weak at all. It's an immensely powerful idea. When you stop thinking all your success is the result of your own hard work (it almost never is), then you can see all the ways people help each other through life. This perspective reduces unhelpful emotions like selfishness and pride, and opens people up to compassion for their fellow human beings. Instead of thinking "wow, that person needs to work harder" you think "wow, how can I help this person the way others have helped me?"

Radical, huh? Can't believe I need to explain this to adults.

woodchip wrote:You first need to define success.

No I don't, because the rule applies regardless of the relativity of success or failure. It applies on every level.

vision wrote:Wow Lothar, you have no idea what you are talking about and your post shows it.

What reason do you have for making this comment? Does insulting me somehow make your point stronger? Or are you just so damaged by the normal E&C mentality that you've forgotten how to have a civil conversation? Please don't do it again.

Lothar wrote:We know that differences in upbringing have a significant effect on outcomes for adults.

Lothar wrote:If you take two identical twins, separate them at birth for adoption, and place them with families that are drastically different on these fronts, they'll have differences in adulthood. But not nearly as drastic as you might think.

So which is it? Does upbringing have a "significant" effect, or in the case of twins, is everyone destined to grow up a certain way? I think you need to figure out where you stand before ratting off contradictory nonsense.

It's not contradictory. An effect can be "significant" while also being "not nearly as drastic as you might think". One side of this discussion has fallen into the error of thinking upbringing is insignificant, while the other has fallen into the error of thinking it has completely drastic and inescapable effects, with neither side able to recognize the actually-true middle. Upbringing matters -- some.

The point of the comic is that, in general, people who experience success will often attribute it to their own hard work without acknowledging their privileges. It contributes to the exact same thinking you expressed here, that the female character's parents did not work hard enough to provide for their daughter even though it is implied that they did

The point of my response is that, while I understand the contribution of privilege to success (and I further understand that some people have trouble recognizing that contribution), I also recognize a certain dangerous mentality wherein people ignore the role of their own decisions, preferring to blame others. The comic strip implies that the family worked hard, and I don't deny that. But the comic strip author also chose to present the panel in question, implying that it's inevitable that a poor child will watch a lot of television instead of reading books or performing other educational tasks -- as if the parents don't have any way to get books in front of their children, as if libraries and public schools don't exist.

Last year I worked in my neighborhood school (in the neighborhood where my grandparents have lived since the 1940s and my parents since the 1970s). 80% of my students spoke english as a second language. 97% are on federal free/reduced lunch. Many of my students were from single-parent homes, or living with grandparents or aunts or uncles. I had one girl whose behavior deteriorated rapidly when her dad got out of prison. I was a mandatory reporter, and I got to make some reports which I will say no more about. If you think I don't know what poverty looks like, come spend a year working at my school (I can put you in touch with the right people) and getting to know these kids -- you can even live in my basement* if the teen parents or the single woman working her way through college have moved out of my spare rooms by then. And then understand this: despite all those hardships, not all of my kids are being raised by the television. Some of them are at home reading books. Some of them are in after-school tutoring programs (not on Memorial Day though.) Some have parents whose idea of "doing anything for our kid" involves an unhealthy amount of television, but most of them have parents who, despite their difficult life circumstances, still manage to get their kids to read books and play outside and do their homework and get help from the organizations in the community that are in place to help them.

And it pisses me off when people say of those kids "they'll never amount to anything because their parents are lazy freeloaders and they are too" -- when they imply that if only they worked hard, they'd become rich. But it also pisses me off when people write off the kids because "their upbringing won't allow them to succeed" -- where they imply that these kids are going to spend their entire childhoods watching television and their adulthoods flipping burgers. Yeah, some of them are going to end up in poverty (but fewer than you probably think) while some of them are going to end up economically well off. Because economic circumstances matter, but they're not an irresistible force. And whether they end up in poverty or wealthy, my students are going to make awesome adults, so give them the respect they deserve instead of acting like they're all just victims of circumstance.


* background check required