I think he’s saying that in the urban setting, generational poverty is more of an issue – specifically, generational poverty associated with specific social indicators, such as contacts with the criminal justice system, absentee parents with substance abuse issues, and a whole host of other social problems that – in my view – are well recognized as being more pervasive in the urban environment.
Again, this is not a race issue – I’m talking about the kinds of things that white people in decaying rowhouses around East Pratt and Lombard in Baltimore reliably suffer. I’m talking about social ills that predominate in inner cities.
(1) Do you agree that such things exist?
(2) What should they be called? (Or is this like the Lord Voldemort of social sciences?)
Such things exist everywhere. There is no factual basis to single out “the inner city”.
The point you’re trying to handwave away is Ryan’s use of a common code word, what it indicates about who he is, and what it indicates about what he thinks about the audience he intends to reach.
See? You are not talking about problems that all inner-city residents share, you are talking about problems inner-city whites suffer at the hands of inner-city minorities. I’ve lived in downtown Baltimore, I know exactly what you’re talking about. But:
Words that do not even by implication blame the persons in question for their circumstances. The problem ain’t that they’re lazy.
No. I said, “within the general range where minimum wage increases actually happen, it’s about as certain as anything having to do with the behavior of human beings can be.” Take it or leave it, counselor. You don’t get to shave it first.
Because your political opponents are not generally evil? I dunno, man. That might have something to do with it.
Here’s the thing. The bad ideas of liberals may lead to a cultural collapse way, way down the line. Maybe. If we never change anything. The bad ideas of republicans actively hurt people now, and they do so in a condescending, deceitful manner.
Because what he’s saying is incredibly offensive to anyone who has been or knows anyone who has been in that situation, and his ideas go on to hurt those people. This is not a hard concept to grasp. If you claim that the poor are, by and large, lazy, and that therefore the correct thing to do is to remove the “hammock” of unemployment, you are wrong, and your being wrong is hurting people. And for a man in Ryan’s position, there is no excuse for being this wrong for this long.
Name me one democratic or liberal position in the last 20 years which is anywhere near as derogatory, harmful, and flat-out wrong.
The talk about teaching a man to fish made me think of a recent episode of the John Stewart Show .One would think conservatives would totally be in favor of the government enabling poor people to fish. But nope. No seafood for po’ folks, even if they catch them themselves.
I believe abortion fits that bill. I believe it’s flat-out wrong. I’d also argue that opposition to nuclear power and genetically modified food is flat-out wrong.
But I’m certain that you don’t agree.
But that’s the point: you’re asserting the unarguable truth of your positions, even though they are not objectively provable.
Ahh, I see the problem. It’s not really that he used the term “inner city poor”. No one would complain if he said “the inner city poor are great people and the salt of the earth”. It’s that he essentially said “inner city poor people are lazy”. Considering the pervasive racist stereotype that black people are lazy, and considering the history of Republicans using the phrase “inner city” to mean “black”, I’m sure you can see why he’s being criticized. Either he is ignorant of that stereotype and the use of that phrase, or he’s aware of it and used it anyway. Either possibility should earn him criticism – wouldn’t you agree?
Except that he did not use the phrase. Your objection is to his implication of a phrase, which in turn is supposed to represent a real phrase, which in turn is supposed to evoke a stereotype.
Or maybe I missed it. What phrase specifically do you object to?
He said “We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work,”
He is saying that inner city people are lazy and don’t know the value of work (due to “culture”, I suppose). That’s perpetuating a really ugly stereotype about black people, even if that’s not what he intends.
I think he probably knows better, because he must be aware of the history of his party referring to black people as “inner city” people, and he must be aware of the racist stereotype of black people are lazy.
OK, I agree. Regardless of the technical defenses he might offer to the statement, there is a historical implication there that touches a stereotype and should be avoided.
But I think there are plenty of people – Ryan perhaps among them – who believe that avoiding something accurate because of the possible racial misinterpretation is itself a form of racism. That is, in a truly color-blind, post-racial society, we simply don’t acknowledge the power of past stereotypes, because we’re past that.
No. I argue Ryan’s position will help more people than it hurts, in the long run.
That’s a matter of basic ethics.
So how can either of us assert “basic ethics” when we don’t share a fundamental agreement on the underlying truths, and agree that neither one of us is asserting something objectively provable? (Assuming we do?)
Except it isn’t accurate to pick out the “inner cities” when lamenting people too lazy to work. And we are *not *fucking past racism in our society, as Ryan’s statement fucking well shows.