The major Perl conference is coming up. If you want to network with people and companies that are still active with Perl, that would be a great place for you to be.
This is just a tautology
Not at all. It summarizes a causal relationship. The disingenuous GP is the one that says, "Having little money is a case of having little money." He doesn't address the why, whereas I'm pointing out that it's the lack of specific action that causes the lack of desired results.
"Cultural issues" my ass, white boy.
There are plenty of poor white people who are poor for their own cultural reasons. The fact that you think culture is the same as skin color shows what a confused person you are. Culture is about behavior, not pigment. Avoiding that reality is just more PC deflection on your part. Nice try. Well, not really.
Poverty is caused by lack of money.
No, it's not. Poverty is caused by not doing the things that make you prosperous. Certainly a kid born into a household where nobody does the things necessary to provide a prosperous environment is a victim indeed. The parents are the only ones responsible for that, period (yeah, yeah, we can make exceptions to that
A kid born into a family where there is no culture of learning, or creativity, of movement towards the things that have lifted untold millions out of poverty
In order to avoid having to give up on your moral relativism and turn in your PC/SJW card, you'll pretend that you just read someone talking about skin color. The fact that you so reflexively resort to that perspective in order to avoid talking about the real problem is, ironically, a stellar display of either disingenuous, craven intellectual dishonesty (or just a juvenile lack of rhetorical skills) on your part, or the sign of someone who really hasn't thought this through.
Address these things and poverty is reduced
Ah, an "addressor" in our midst. Say what you, mean. Tear down people who have something so you can spread it around, right? No. Places like west Baltimore are saturated in lavish education spending, free or heavily subsidized transportation (and walkable blocks from places without even needing it), awash in grant money that's just looking for ways to turn abandoned properties into livable homes and viable businesses, and it's been run by people at the legislative and executive levels (since you're so obsessed with this) roughly the same color as those who live there. Health and legal expenses? Covered by taxpayer-funded medical care and legal clinics where you can hear the crickets chirping for lack of interest in use other than when someone's arrested for street crime.
We've been "addressing" those issues, lavishly, for decades. Miles away, there's prosperity. In that spot? People living in fear of the local street gangs and those squatting in abandoned homes and businesses. Why? Because the members of those gangs, the thugs who make that area intolerable as a place to live or run a business, have safe haven, culturally, in the households in which they were so passively raised. Ask the people who live there, and they'll tell you that's exactly the problem. "Addressing" that problem means (ready?) not tolerating the crime. And that means police presence and activity. But we're being told, by the president no less, that what's really needed is a less visible and active police force. And indeed, the police in that area have dialed it way back in the last few weeks
Just what you look for when deciding where to build your next fire-proof retail store, right?
OK, so really the GP is saying that the only reason we have people in poverty is because we have other people who aren't in poverty. Which is nonsense.
Prosperity is not a fixed-size meal to be spread around. If it were, we'd all be living like paupers because the population has grown so much. Prosperity is created, and people of modest means create it all the time. Then they become the ones who are resented for no longer being impoverished. Too bad, they earned it. The fact that they are no longer impoverished is not what's keeping someone else from having a better life.
IMO, the only decent/moral solution is for a society in which things are more equitable. I'm not saying that a CEO shouldn't earn more than an employee, but 100X seems immoral.
So, impoverished people will suddenly start raising kids in two-parent households, or start teaching kids to read and think critically and have a work ethic
How about CEOs that make 50X? Does that pass your moral standard? 49.5%? 49.4%? When exactly does a business owners or director's pay become "moral." What is the standard you're using? Do you really mean that morality is based on statistics, not on actual principles? You agree that the person who runs a company is worth more than a person who sweeps the floor at that company. Why? What MORAL grounds to you have for that distinction? Be specific. And then in one percent pay increments, start describing exactly when it's suddenly immoral.
Because once you nail that down, you'll see how you've just set yourself up to be the immoral one for making more money, yourself, than someone else does. By someone else's standards (if we use your model), you yourself pure evil for not being as poor as someone else. How DARE you live a lifestyle so rich that you can afford the time to sit around expressing opinions on the internet! Other people don't have that luxury, so you must be immorally prosperous. If you stop being that prosperous, that will finally other people to be prosperous, right?
Me on the other hand? I'm an island in a sea of indifference.
Which is fine until you're killed by someone who irrationally thinks you're responsible for their poverty. Or your home loses half its value because a change in the local demographics means an encroaching street crime problem. Indifference doesn't change the problem you'll have renegotiating your upside down mortgage. But that's fine, you're much too cool to worry about such stuff.
I don't understand why the fact that Black people kill Black people negates the fact that law enforcement is often racist. Can't both be true?
Yes, there can be racist cops, just like there are racist black people. That has nothing to do with the assertion that the DC police only went after this quadruple murderer because the killer is black and victims are white. DC police go after killers every day. Given the local demographic, most of the killers are black, just like most of their victims. The GP wants to imagine that the DC police don't ever go after killers of black victims, which is BS on the face of it.
Reduce minority poverty, and minority crime will probably drop too. There are lots of ways to do that, but it takes a huge effort to do so.
So what do you propose? Use government power to force minority mothers to marry, and to force the fathers or children to stay at home, become educated, and care enough to raise children who will actually attend school? Are you saying that a kid who is born into a household with one young, under-educated parent is going to be starting out life with that disadvantage because other people aren't poor? Do you really think that places like Baltimore, which spend way above average per student on education, and have an endless parade of subsidies and programs to provide resources to people in poverty
The problem is cultural. Persistent poverty in the worst parts of Appalachia, or in west Baltimore, don't exist because other people are prosperous. That entire meme is just SJW hand-wringing BS. Poorly disguised resentment of success that's trotted out to do anything to avoid addressing the cultural issues that are the actual problem in such places.
A shuttle is generally accepted to be something that runs often, doing a job over and over, back and forth, time after time - the airport shuttle, the shuttlecock (more weaving than the sport) etc etc.
So going by its intended use, this meets the naming criteria...
If you pick a black person and then pick a random victim, it's more likely the victim will be white than black, because there are more white people than black people.
Then why are there more murders committed by black people (against all sorts of victims) then would be accounted for by their percentage of the population? What is your point, exactly? Yes, there are more "white" people than "black" people in the general population. That's not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the rate of crime coming out of specific demographics.
"After we found out he is a black man that allegedly killed a white family - oh, and their maid, I guess."
Well, sure. Because the SJWs are insisting that police do less to hunt down black guys who are responsible for the plague of murders the commit within their own demographic. Since, you know, it's racist and oppressive to attempt to arrest those guys.
Your whole "this is the fault of rich people" narrative is a bunch of SJW BS.
Because there are more whites than blacks you fucking piece of shit.
Do the math before you get so riled up, Mr. Coward. The numbers aren't even close to the population ratio, demographically.
Naming an extraordinarily unusual retailer does not bolster your point.
Of course it does. It's AN example of what I'm talking about. There are plenty of retailers who pay entry-level employees more than minimum wage. Why? Because they want to keep them around - churn is expensive, even at the stock/clerk level. Flipping burgers isn't supposed to be a career. You're not supposed to do things like have babies while you're on your first, menial job.