Just wondering what everyone thinks about this. In almost every place I’ve worked coworkers with right wing beliefs are never shy about giving their opinion and views on things.

The major talking points are usually variations of stuff like: we spend to much on beneficiaries and they should stop being lazy and get a job. That poor people have kids so they can get free money from the government. We need or be tougher on crime. Even absurd shit like being outraged that a homeless person had a smartphone and indulging in such lavishness is why they’re homeless etc etc

Some of the shit I hear from otherwise seemingly lovely people is insane. I feel like I have to be so much more measured and have all my ‘evidence’ ready to defend my commie beliefs while these people can just say whatever bullshit they want and everybody just kinda nods in agreement.

Is this a normal thing in the Angloverse? Is it because their views are essentially the status quo already and they have just fully internalised the capitalist propeganda?

Please let me know

  • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    we spend to much on beneficiaries and they should stop being lazy and get a job

    Virtually every dollar that goes into welfare gets spent, meaning that it’s a particularly good use of taxpayer money because it goes straight back into circulation and it props up economic growth.

    (This next part answers the homelessness topic to a certain degree)

    We need to have strong welfare networks available because otherwise we create poverty traps where people must sell their house, their car, (yes) their smartphone, and be on the brink of destitution before they become eligible for assistance which means they face a situation where they no longer have the resources to be able to find and maintain long-term employment.

    Anecdotally, in my country the unemployment income support is so far below the poverty line that small business operators in fields that require moderate to heavy labour actively discriminate against unemployed candidates.

    Why? Because people on unemployment have such little money that they are not well-fed enough to be able to make it through a single day’s worth of work without crapping out due to exhaustion. So there’s a perverse incentive that prevents unemployed people from getting jobs here.

    That poor people have kids so they can get free money from the government.

    There’s literally zero chance that a typical person is having children in order to get free money from the government. Even at its best, you might manage to break even financially but if you’re that lazy that you’re just having kids as a free income stream then you’re going to have a really hard time with the fact that children, especially infants, demand a huge amount of time and work. You’re not getting paid anywhere near minimum wage for the work required to raise a child unless it’s receiving CPS intervention levels of neglect. It’s much easier dealing with some Karen while you’re wearing some goofy uniform for $10 an hour than it is to deal with some screaming, vomiting child at 3 in the morning for zero dollars per hour.

    In any case, I want the next generation of children to be provided with adequate nutrition that they develop normally. I want them to have an education which is rich and which allows them to get good jobs and lead fulfilling lives where they’re able to contribute to society. I want them to have healthcare which means they’re capable of living long, healthy lives rather than being stuck with chronic and debilitating conditions.

    Why do I give a fuck about what supports are provided to children when I don’t have any and I have zero intention of having kids myself? Because these people are my neighbours, my community, and eventually my fellow workers too.

    We need or be tougher on crime.

    I usually start by asking people if they know what the typical punishment is for certain crimes. They never have a good answer.

    Then I explain that if they aren’t aware of the typical punishments for crimes and they’re better educated than some lowlife criminal (lol, but stick with me - flattery will get you everywhere) then what makes them think that a criminal would know the typical punishments better than them? So what sort of deterrence does it have if we change a punishment from 2 years imprisonment to 5 years imprisonment when nobody is looking up this info before committing a crime?

    These people aren’t calling their lawyers that they have on retainer to weigh up the cost-benefit analysis of committing a crime before they do it. Get real.

    Even absurd shit like being outraged that a homeless person had a smartphone and indulging in such lavishness is why they’re homeless etc etc

    If I was homeless I’d want to have a means to make phonecalls in case of emergency, to stay in contact with loved ones, to record important dates and to have access to directions, to be able to access information available on the internet, and to have the potential for getting a job.

    How much does an outdated, shitty smartphone sell for second-hand?

    How many nights in a motel is that going to get you? And then what? Go back out onto the streets after a night or two except without the ability to easily communicate and access information? Lol, okay.

    That’s not going to be enough money to pay for the cost of bond on rental accommodation. How far do you think $75 from a second-hand phone is going to get a homeless person? Next are you gonna complain that they’ve spent money on a pair of shoes rather than putting that cash towards paying for a single day’s worth of rent?


    All of these arguments are fine but they’re unlikely to sway opinion very much unless you’re dealing with a young person. The reason why I have them in my arsenal is because I want to turn every snide political commentary into an uncomfortable situation where their Fox News-tier received wisdom is rebutted by well thought out positions that they are unable to respond to by regurgitating cheap talking points.

    I basically create an aura of deterrence around me for the people I have to deal with, like some sort of Pavlovian conditioning. If you’re going to talk bullshit, I’m going to make it uncomfortable for you. I’m not trying to convince you or to prove that I’m right/you’re wrong or anything like that. I’m just going to train you to shut the fuck up and keep your stupid opinions to yourself so that my mental health isn’t compromised because you took it upon yourself to opine about topics that you don’t know shit about.

    Yes, I’m an asshole.

    No, I don’t hand out unsolicited political prescriptions to people in my real life. If you don’t like it when I “get political” that’s fine, I don’t want to talk politics with you and I’m going to make it so you don’t want to talk politics around me either. If you’re going to make me uncomfortable then I’m going to make it at least as uncomfortable for you until you are ready to tap out. And we can go through this as many times as you need to before you learn your lesson.

    • LeopardShepherd [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Thank you for your thoughtful response. I definitely agree with everything here and have used some of these counter arguments before. It definitely shuts some people up and makes them think twice about sharing their opinions with me at least. It can be a difficult thing to navigate especially when you have to work together with these people everyday.