For this edition of Facebook Friday, I decided to change things up a bit and feature a conversation, in which (much to my eternal shame) I recently allowed myself to take part. The names of the "winners" this week have been hidden, not so much to protect their identities, but mostly to aid in mocking them. Their profile pictures have also been altered accordingly. All spelling and grammatical errors have been left intact. My refutation of the headline below is what sparked the controversy and riled up these ill-informed, moronic Southern Baptists:
Redefining Government LeechIn keeping with a rich history of oppression and prejudice that could only come from a majority of the population being in their "golden years", Florida has decided throw decency to the wind and start a campaign to outright discriminate against the poor and destitute. It seems that the penalty for committing the crime of "not having an affluent heritage" will now be dehumanization and the expectation that you will gleefully forfeit any and all constitutional rights deemed necessary by Grand Moff Rick Scott. Many people have chimed in, but none so loudly, and with their fingers shoved so deeply into their ears, as those shot by the arrow of ignorance from an inbred version of Cupid-- a skinny, balding, meth-addled cherub in a wife-beater whose two remaining teeth stand in defiance of the drunken fist-fights he routinely gets in with his Sisterwife*. I would like to point out that I am not friends with any of the miscreants featured herein; they are, in fact, acquaintances of a relative (Materfamilias).
I began, as always, with a little research on the topic. Like, what studies had been done on how effective this solution would be, its financial impact and just how many people on welfare actually use drugs. The consensus seems to be, as I had suspected, that this measure would not help to achieve the desired end. A meager 3-10% of people on welfare are drug abusers. It is fiscally irresponsible, and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) even offered a study that the stigma impacted those on welfare negatively. So I posted some of these facts in response to the original pro-drug-testing post. Not so much to incite rage or opposition, but to educate and inform. This method of thwarting drug addicts is demonstrably impractical and ineffective. It's like when someone you know is propagating a chain letter and you politely refer them to the Snopes.com article debunking whatever bullshit it happens to be putting forth. It started out with the most innocent of intentions, but I was quickly drawn into a maddening bizarro-world where up is down, left is right, there's a black president and Arnold Schwarzenegger got busy with the help.
First and foremost, it's an egregious violation of constitutional rights. The fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. If you have no history of drug abuse, and no criminal record, then the seizure and subsequent searching of your bodily fluids is unreasonable and thus a violation of your rights. Case closed, right? Let's see what the peanut gallery has to say...
I began, as always, with a little research on the topic. Like, what studies had been done on how effective this solution would be, its financial impact and just how many people on welfare actually use drugs. The consensus seems to be, as I had suspected, that this measure would not help to achieve the desired end. A meager 3-10% of people on welfare are drug abusers. It is fiscally irresponsible, and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) even offered a study that the stigma impacted those on welfare negatively. So I posted some of these facts in response to the original pro-drug-testing post. Not so much to incite rage or opposition, but to educate and inform. This method of thwarting drug addicts is demonstrably impractical and ineffective. It's like when someone you know is propagating a chain letter and you politely refer them to the Snopes.com article debunking whatever bullshit it happens to be putting forth. It started out with the most innocent of intentions, but I was quickly drawn into a maddening bizarro-world where up is down, left is right, there's a black president and Arnold Schwarzenegger got busy with the help.
First and foremost, it's an egregious violation of constitutional rights. The fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. If you have no history of drug abuse, and no criminal record, then the seizure and subsequent searching of your bodily fluids is unreasonable and thus a violation of your rights. Case closed, right? Let's see what the peanut gallery has to say...
Do you really want to compare being on welfare to holding a steady job? Isn't part of the problem that some of these people are freeloading instead of getting a job? Their argument is as riddled with fallacies as it is grammatical errors! If the argument is that welfare is essentially just like any other job, and so these people should have to piss test, then you shouldn't complain when they don't go out looking for some other form of gainful employment. According to the Pro-pissers (I'll be trademarking this term shortly), you can make a career out of welfare!
The notion that just because you are without means and require financial assistance you should gleefully accept a violation of your constitutional rights is offensive and loathsome. Moreover, if unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply to guarding completely innocent civilians, with no criminal record, then where exactly is that line drawn? I'm curious just what exactly these idiots think that amendment is there for. Certainly, the men who drafted the constitution couldn't have foreseen urine testing, blood testing or any other procedures of that nature, but I'm certain that, in addition to being completely baffled and weirded out, they would agree that the government doesn't have the right to take YOUR PISS AND BLOOD- even if you are offered remuneration. And then there's this dipshit...
The notion that just because you are without means and require financial assistance you should gleefully accept a violation of your constitutional rights is offensive and loathsome. Moreover, if unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply to guarding completely innocent civilians, with no criminal record, then where exactly is that line drawn? I'm curious just what exactly these idiots think that amendment is there for. Certainly, the men who drafted the constitution couldn't have foreseen urine testing, blood testing or any other procedures of that nature, but I'm certain that, in addition to being completely baffled and weirded out, they would agree that the government doesn't have the right to take YOUR PISS AND BLOOD- even if you are offered remuneration. And then there's this dipshit...
Talk about a toddler wanting to talk astrophysics. He chimes in without even having read anything that came above. It's fantastic how he ignored that his first post was based on an entirely false premise. And no one said anything about people waiting in the shadows to steal your pee. This is happening right out in the open. We're talking about lines of innocent people being treated like criminals in broad daylight. Nice attempt at a straw man, imbecile!
How is forcing any and all who would file for welfare only discriminating those who use drugs? That would be the case if we only tested the drug users, but unless this assclown has invented a dowsing rod that can point them out, then you're going to have to just discriminate against an entire class of people to weed out the bad ones. What I can't wrap my mind around is how he concluded that drugs are expensive. The drugs they buy are cheap, and that's the fucking point. By the end, he's contrived a new false premise upon which to base his argument. Newflash cocksucker: your constitutional rights do not include limiting the rights of others.
How is forcing any and all who would file for welfare only discriminating those who use drugs? That would be the case if we only tested the drug users, but unless this assclown has invented a dowsing rod that can point them out, then you're going to have to just discriminate against an entire class of people to weed out the bad ones. What I can't wrap my mind around is how he concluded that drugs are expensive. The drugs they buy are cheap, and that's the fucking point. By the end, he's contrived a new false premise upon which to base his argument. Newflash cocksucker: your constitutional rights do not include limiting the rights of others.
Drug testing welfare applicants is not going to keep drug users from getting that money. Do you have any idea how easy it is to cheat a drug test? Most fast food restaurants rely on this fact as a means to keep staffed! This will be a minor inconvenience to these people at most. However, the stain left on the integrity of those who are innocent is unacceptable. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? When did it become "poor people are all dope fiends until they piss in a cup and I forget they exist"?
Some would argue that the drug addicts are stealing away welfare funds that could otherwise be given to people who are being denied. This idea simply doesn't hold water. People are being denied welfare because the poverty line is having to be drawn so low that even some families who would otherwise qualify are having to be turned down. When I re-enroll in school, as I plan to do soon, my meager financial aid will count as my income and thus disqualify me from any kind of welfare. Perhaps it's not my preferred outcome, but it definitely is not because the money that would otherwise go to me is being given to people who are spending it on drugs. Even if these people are denied welfare, I wouldn't magically qualify for it all of a sudden. It has nothing to do with the level of available funds and everything to do with where the poverty line is drawn.
Some would argue that the drug addicts are stealing away welfare funds that could otherwise be given to people who are being denied. This idea simply doesn't hold water. People are being denied welfare because the poverty line is having to be drawn so low that even some families who would otherwise qualify are having to be turned down. When I re-enroll in school, as I plan to do soon, my meager financial aid will count as my income and thus disqualify me from any kind of welfare. Perhaps it's not my preferred outcome, but it definitely is not because the money that would otherwise go to me is being given to people who are spending it on drugs. Even if these people are denied welfare, I wouldn't magically qualify for it all of a sudden. It has nothing to do with the level of available funds and everything to do with where the poverty line is drawn.
Can you guess which onehas unjustified prejudices?
Another little pill of truth that might be tough to swallow is that most of this is really just thinly veiled racism. When that asshole up there (played by Don Knotts) sits back and stews about how his tax dollars are being misappropriated, he isn't seeing a skinny white dude with piecemeal facial hair, and a harelip, snorting meth; he's envisioning a black guy with illegitimate children smoking a joint. If this is really the road he wants to go down, then here is what I propose: anyone who stands to gain anything that is subsidized with federal or state tax money has to take a mandatory piss test. But not just for controlled substances, for alcohol too. I sure as hell don't want my tax dollars going to help some white collar alcoholic feed his addiction. If you have children that attend public school, drive on a public road or have benefited from services rendered by our nation's military, then you must take a monthly piss test to prove you meet my uppity, impossible criteria. Why? Because it's my constitutional right to demand anything I want of anyone else at any given time on a goddamn whim. Waaaah, boo-hoo, poor little me, I think I'm special for paying taxes, black people smell funny and scare me. Fuck you, and the racist horse you rode in on (pictured above).
I just had an even better idea. Let's make a law requiring the poor to wear a fluorescent yellow shirt at all times. This would make it much easier for law enforcement officials and government employees to identify which are "half-people"- those whose rights and feelings it will henceforth be okay to disregard. Also, their votes only count as half. Likewise, rich people will receive shirts made of gold from the government. Votes count double. Yes, this sounds like a vast improvement. As a white person, I know I will rest more peacefully at night knowing that this, along with piss testing, will absolutely prevent any drug user from ever collecting welfare again. At the end of the day, that's really what it's all about, right? Making white people feel better?
I know that I've inevitably repeated myself, but such is the pitfall of arguing with ham-fisted apes. I shouldn't care so much, but I do; I genuinely do. It's a tragedy that there are people out there with so little while, on the opposite end of the spectrum, there are people with so much they could spend frivolously the rest of their lives and never see the end of it. To some, it is embarrassing and depressing to be reliant on government subsidy just to get by. While I wouldn't derive any such shame, I can certainly empathize with those who feel it as a blow to the pride. It's such a disrespectful slap in the face to these people, who are having a hard enough time as it is, to indirectly accuse them of being drug addicts. If you want to talk about big issues and play adult, then do your goddamn research. And if you can't take the time to inform yourself and create an opinion with some basis in fact, then just keep your fucking mouth shut.
I just had an even better idea. Let's make a law requiring the poor to wear a fluorescent yellow shirt at all times. This would make it much easier for law enforcement officials and government employees to identify which are "half-people"- those whose rights and feelings it will henceforth be okay to disregard. Also, their votes only count as half. Likewise, rich people will receive shirts made of gold from the government. Votes count double. Yes, this sounds like a vast improvement. As a white person, I know I will rest more peacefully at night knowing that this, along with piss testing, will absolutely prevent any drug user from ever collecting welfare again. At the end of the day, that's really what it's all about, right? Making white people feel better?
I know that I've inevitably repeated myself, but such is the pitfall of arguing with ham-fisted apes. I shouldn't care so much, but I do; I genuinely do. It's a tragedy that there are people out there with so little while, on the opposite end of the spectrum, there are people with so much they could spend frivolously the rest of their lives and never see the end of it. To some, it is embarrassing and depressing to be reliant on government subsidy just to get by. While I wouldn't derive any such shame, I can certainly empathize with those who feel it as a blow to the pride. It's such a disrespectful slap in the face to these people, who are having a hard enough time as it is, to indirectly accuse them of being drug addicts. If you want to talk about big issues and play adult, then do your goddamn research. And if you can't take the time to inform yourself and create an opinion with some basis in fact, then just keep your fucking mouth shut.
* I was born and raised in the south, so I'll talk as much shit as I please, thank you kindly.
No comments:
Post a Comment