"Chav - the Musical"

[Slothrop]

There are equally 'poor' people who carry around attitudes towards those seen as less 'poor' or more 'successful' (silver spoon, public school, whatever) that are equally irrational and probably held for the exact same reasons and to the exact same ends.

Yeah, the reason that we got into all this was commenting that although the opportunities to get out of a poverty trap are limited, which is a Bad Thing, the culture in a lot of schools and so on makes it harder for people to take the oppurtunities that are there, which is also a Bad Thing.


Hmmm... you must think in terms of free will when you're making a decision in the present, though? Or at least, approach it as if you had free will? You think 'what outcome do I want this to have' rather than 'what outcome am I predestined to cause this to have', no?

 

[noel emits]

Obviously some qualifications should be made in terms of age. You would hope that 'adults' have a greater sense of personal responsibility and it's not really fair to expect young kids to be completely free from feeling like they need to conform to peer pressure, or to understand the contingent nature of the school culture they find themselves in.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think I can see a way to come to a compromise here.

One of the main ways, if not the main way, for a person to have a disadvantaged start in life (and, consequently, a disadvantaged life) is being brought up by parents who, for one reason or another, either can't really cope with having kids or simply can't be arsed with them. It could be all sorts of reasons - drug/booze problems, mental issues, demands of work, ill health or other things (many of which will be an inescapable result of the parents' own upbringing, and so on, ad infinitum). Or the effects of falling in with 'the wrong crowd' could be so bad as to undermine the efforts of well-adjusted, conscientious parents. So by the time a kid brought up like this reached adolescence or early adulthood, the damage is done.

So one way of trying to level the playing field is to try and instill in people who've ended up in this situation the values a well brought-up person takes for granted: the idea that it's good to do Good and bad to do Bad. Very often, people who are consistently in trouble with the law have very little by way of knowledge or skills, so as I mentioned earlier some kind of education or training should be an integral part of rehabilitation - and along with that, there has to be something to demonstrate that there are limits to acceptable behaviour and that society will not tolerate infractions of these limits; in other words, a punishment. In other words, I think it's better late than never to try and turn someone into a functional member of society.

If you treat people as irresponsible and lazy, on the basis that they can't help but act like that due to circumstances beyond their control, how are they ever going to be anything else?

 

[Gavin]

I think I can see a way to come to a compromise here.

One of the main ways, if not the main way, for a person to have a disadvantaged start in life (and, consequently, a disadvantaged life) is being brought up by parents who, for one reason or another, either can't really cope with having kids or simply can't be arsed with them. It could be all sorts of reasons - drug/booze problems, mental issues, demands of work, ill health or other things (many of which will be an inescapable result of the parents' own upbringing, and so on, ad infinitum). Or the effects of falling in with 'the wrong crowd' could be so bad as to undermine the efforts of well-adjusted, conscientious parents. So by the time a kid brought up like this reached adolescence or early adulthood, the damage is done.

So one way of trying to level the playing field is to try and instill in people who've ended up in this situation the values a well brought-up person takes for granted: the idea that it's good to do Good and bad to do Bad. Very often, people who are consistently in trouble with the law have very little by way of knowledge or skills, so as I mentioned earlier some kind of education or training should be an integral part of rehabilitation - and along with that, there has to be something to demonstrate that there are limits to acceptable behaviour and that society will not tolerate infractions of these limits; in other words, a punishment. In other words, I think it's better late than never to try and turn someone into a functional member of society.

If you treat people as irresponsible and lazy, on the basis that they can't help but act like that due to circumstances beyond their control, how are they ever going to be anything else?

There is a complete disconnect between improving the life chances of the "disadvantaged" (and I do not agree with your characterization of the word) and your pathological desire to use state power, including forcible imprisonment, to get people to act in the way most beneficial to the status quo, or at least in a way that least offends you personally. That is, in this thread, you have advocated punishing the poor for not buying into a system (you use "society" by which you seem to mean "the state") that makes them poor and disadvantaged in the first place. All reference to making them "functional" or "well-adjusted" etc. essentially mean turning them into workers who always follow the rules -- it's sort of like a dog that needs trained not to piss in the house through some tugs on the chokechain and maybe a few treats, because that keeps the carpet cleaner, and I don't doubt that deep down that's how you think of the poor. And need I point out that this thread originated with a discussion of chavs, who I understand come off as generally boorish and tacky, but not necessarily criminal.

The poor should have as much a right to be disgusting, offensive idiots as the rich. Mr. Tea, you seem to agree with this point, but advocate repression (of the poor) to achieve this, hardly egalitarian in my mind. But then again, I don't blame children for the heartless "society" and crap schools they have to deal with.

You really display a lack of ability to deal with difference if you want the state to rush in and imprison/hospitalize people before they wear knock-off Burberry or call you a twat on the bus. And your lack of comprehension of mister sloane's beautiful story shows how privileged you really are: the state is your nanny, and you'd just as soon resort to temper-tantrum/vengence (in the name of nanny's "Good" and "Bad" of course) instead of acting like someone with personal responsibility and working things out in the real community (not this bullshit "society").

What is so embarrassing to people in general when others are assholes? This totalitarian desire to literally police out certain behaviors, ones that don't even violate precious property laws... it's something I see everywhere and I find incredibly disturbing. Because Barack Obama would never be taken seriously unless what they say is true, that he's not black enough (which is ironically actually the only amount of black that could get this far), his smooth disciplined cadences, his boring suits, are white (not "normal" or "average" or "regular" which are just code words I hear used when they aren't saying "articulate"); were he to dress and act like one of the thousands of middle-aged Chicagoan blacks I see coming out of church he would simply not be credible to whites (see Al Sharpton).

Off-Topic: Junior Boys in Marriott commercial RIGHT NOW.

 

[elgato]

Hmmm... you must think in terms of free will when you're making a decision in the present, though? Or at least, approach it as if you had free will? You think 'what outcome do I want this to have' rather than 'what outcome am I predestined to cause this to have', no?

but what determines what outcome you want any action to have? what processes create ones desires and tendencies?

 

[noel emits]

Elgato - do you think that's what Schopenhauer was going on about - Man can do what he wills, but he can't will what he wills? Einstein paraphrased badly I think.

I think the Golden Rule would be a good starting point, no?

I mean if you 'want' an action to have a negative outcome then that's probably something that needs addressing? Which I think is what Mr. Tea was getting at, although like Gavin I am uncomfortable with invoking state law in this, or equating society with Government.

 

[elgato]

Elgato - do you think that's what Schopenhauer was going on about - Man can do what he wills, but he can't will what he wills? Einstein paraphrased badly I think.

I suspect that thats exactly what Schopenhauer meant. What do you think about it?

I mean if you 'want' an action to have a negative outcome then that's probably something that needs addressing? Which I think is what Mr. Tea was getting at, although like Gavin I am uncomfortable with invoking state law in this, or equating society with Government.

well yes, but thats a separate issue. as i said, im more in this debate to talk about the philosophical question, and then specifically attitudes and understanding (which then of course will affect policy decisions) than policy (although fair enough i did chat a bit about criminal policy), because i see it as foolish to base policy on a fallacy, or to work backwards and base metaphysical belief on practicality, based on practice in a very specific society

 

[noel emits]

I suspect that thats exactly what Schopenhauer meant. What do you think about it?

I think it requires a clarification of terms. What is meant here by 'will' for instance?

 

[noel emits]

well yes, but thats a separate issue. as i said, im more in this debate to talk about the philosophical question, and then specifically attitudes and understanding (which then of course will affect policy decisions) than policy (although fair enough i did chat a bit about criminal policy), because i see it as foolish to base policy on a fallacy, or to work backwards and base metaphysical belief on practicality, based on practice in a very specific society

OK - I can see why you'd like to go about things this way round, it does make sense to me. I do feel that most other posters on this thread are more focussed on immediate practicalities, so you are also arguing for a reframing of the discussion in to your terms.

You seem to be saying that you believe there to be something that precedes free will, the existence of which invalidates notions of accountability.

Can you clarify what your assumptions are about the fundamental nature of human beings?

 

[swears]

There is a complete disconnect between improving the life chances of the "disadvantaged" (and I do not agree with your characterization of the word) and your pathological desire to use state power, including forcible imprisonment, to get people to act in the way most beneficial to the status quo, or at least in a way that least offends you personally. That is, in this thread, you have advocated punishing the poor for not buying into a system (you use "society" by which you seem to mean "the state") that makes them poor and disadvantaged in the first place. All reference to making them "functional" or "well-adjusted" etc. essentially mean turning them into workers who always follow the rules -- it's sort of like a dog that needs trained not to piss in the house through some tugs on the chokechain and maybe a few treats, because that keeps the carpet cleaner, and I don't doubt that deep down that's how you think of the poor. And need I point out that this thread originated with a discussion of chavs, who I understand come off as generally boorish and tacky, but not necessarily criminal.

The poor should have as much a right to be disgusting, offensive idiots as the rich. Mr. Tea, you seem to agree with this point, but advocate repression (of the poor) to achieve this, hardly egalitarian in my mind. But then again, I don't blame children for the heartless "society" and crap schools they have to deal with.

You really display a lack of ability to deal with difference if you want the state to rush in and imprison/hospitalize people before they wear knock-off Burberry or call you a twat on the bus. And your lack of comprehension of mister sloane's beautiful story shows how privileged you really are: the state is your nanny, and you'd just as soon resort to temper-tantrum/vengence (in the name of nanny's "Good" and "Bad" of course) instead of acting like someone with personal responsibility and working things out in the real community (not this bullshit "society").

What is so embarrassing to people in general when others are assholes? This totalitarian desire to literally police out certain behaviors, ones that don't even violate precious property laws... it's something I see everywhere and I find incredibly disturbing. Because Barack Obama would never be taken seriously unless what they say is true, that he's not black enough (which is ironically actually the only amount of black that could get this far), his smooth disciplined cadences, his boring suits, are white (not "normal" or "average" or "regular" which are just code words I hear used when they aren't saying "articulate"); were he to dress and act like one of the thousands of middle-aged Chicagoan blacks I see coming out of church he would simply not be credible to whites (see Al Sharpton).

Off-Topic: Junior Boys in Marriott commercial RIGHT NOW.

Do you really think anybody's anti-social behaviour is an actual threat to the status quo?
Is being obnoxious or violent to random strangers really taking a stand against the state? Come on. Pathetic macho posturing is "buying into a system" as much as anything else is.

 

[noel emits]

Elgato - in case it seems like I think that looking at the philosophical question first is not practical, I don't. This thread has got a bit tangled with people talking at cross purposes though.

 

[elgato]

Yes you're right, I am discussing the issue at a different plane (that isn't meant to imply superior), but the reason Im doing so here is because it seems that almost always this type of debate is grounded on assumptions (or at least unconsciously grounded on assumptions) regarding individual moral accountability, usually assumptions with which I do not agree. Perhaps I have been mis-using language, I'm unsure, because it seems that no-one has really been seeing what I'm saying. Also I know that my thoughts are still very jumbled (thus I chat on here to be challenged and develop them) so sorry if its confusing.

Essentially what I am saying is that free will is a myth. That we as individuals are sums of processes over which we have no control. All characteristics which affect the choices we make (our preferences, tendencies etc) are determined by factors, be they genetic or environmental, which cannot be controlled by the individual. We want to believe in something within us which is greater than the sum of arbitrary processes, which is uniquely us, which rises above, especially because we have grown up in cultures still rife with the echoes of religious and spiritual belief. But I don't believe it. Essentially the very notion of an individual is re-configured, to no more than a conduit for the forces which have formed it. As far as I can see, to believe in anything more requires a blind and unjustified leap of faith.

Given these assumptions, we need to re-examine whether an individual (ANY individual) may be held morally accountable for their actions, or whether they are morally entitled to any benefits of their actions - whether we can say that they deserve what they get. And so we must ask, why SHOULD someone benefit from pure chance? Or be punished for it?

btw i appreciate you giving the discussion another chance

 

[Mr. Tea]

Jesus, there's so much rubbish in this thread of the sort that gives liberals a bad name.

Gavin, I don't know where you've got this idea about Indoctinating People Into Being The Cogs Of A Big Evil Capilalist Machine (the half-understood lyrics of a Rage Against The Machine album, I suspect) but let me give you an idea of what I'm talking about. A couple of weeks ago I was on a train when a window was shattered by a brick. Fortunately it didn't go through the window, as it could have seriously injured or killed someone, obviously. As it happened the only consequences were a delayed journey, the cost of a new window to the train company and a fractionally lowered opinion of humanity for everyone on the train. Now the person who threw that brick was a stupid cunt, and anyone who says otherwise is also a stupid cunt. Having parents who live on benefits or living in a council house in no excuse for that sort of stupid cuntery; since when did it cost anything to teach your kids not to be violent, antisocial pricks? There are plenty of rich wankers, after all, and plenty of perfectly decent working class people. "Workers who follow the rules", indeed - if one of the rules is Do Not Throw Fucking Bricks At The Train, I'd say it's a fairly good rule, wouldn't you? Fucksake.

If the person who did this is 'disadvantaged' it's because they've not been brought up to know (or rather, give a shit about) right and wrong. That's all there is to it.

 

[IdleRich]

"Given these assumptions, we need to re-examine whether an individual (ANY individual) may be held morally accountable for their actions, or whether they are morally entitled to any benefits of their actions - whether we can say that they deserve what they get. And so we must ask, why SHOULD someone benefit from pure chance? Or be punished for it?"

If there is no such thing as free will and we are indeed simply as you outlined above then it is surely perfectly meaningless to talk of morality and to ask questions such as "should?".
Elgato, could you tell me how you think that there can be morality without free-will?

 

[elgato]

well exactly. thats what i imply no? im challenging the prevalent assumption that people should benefit / should be punished etc

i dont think there can be morality, certainly not an objective, meaningful one

thats not to say i want it to be that way

 

[IdleRich]

"well exactly. thats what i imply no? im challenging the prevalent assumption that people should benefit / should be punished etc"

What I'm saying is that if you don't believe in free will then there is no question of whether or not people should get punished or rewarded, they simply do or don't and that's all you can say about it.

 

[elgato]

its true

as i say i know that i am still very much jumbled, still filled with the echoes of a socialist upbringing, and a desire for something to hold onto, i know that i often step outside of my rationale

its all very bleak though isn't it

but where is the argument to counter it?

 

[noel emits]

its true

as i say i know that i am still very much jumbled, still filled with the echoes of a socialist upbringing, and a desire for something to hold onto, i know that i often step outside of my rationale

its all very bleak though isn't it

but where is the argument to counter it?

You must be aware that the counter arguments are numerous?

I'll get to the rest in a bit.

 

[noel emits]

We want to believe in something within us which is greater than the sum of arbitrary processes, which is uniquely us, which rises above, especially because we have grown up in cultures still rife with the echoes of religious and spiritual belief. But I don't believe it.

How about something which is less than the sum of our arbitrary processes?

 

[elgato]

You must be aware that the counter arguments are numerous?

i've never been presented with one which convinced me...