Black Lives Matter

[zegh8578]

Yeah, blacks killing blacks is something allready being dealt with: Gangs. Gangs usually target other gangs. So one black gang will attack another black gang.
Like Crni says, people kill those relevant to them, first and foremost.
I'm sure the main target to white killers are other white people.
And nobody is allowing blacks to kill blacks, they will be investigated and put in prison, where they are, in the plenties.

Gang culture is a difficult issue, and it is always - always - tied with poor neighborhoods, low prospects, and low education. Not just in America, but everywhere in the world where gangs spring up. It's a tremendous issue.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

Do most black people live in black comunities?

I am just assuming here, but let us say you have a town with 1 000 black people and almost no white people. Would it be such a huge suprise if most of the black people that get killed are ... killed by black people? I guess if you have a poor white area, most of the crimes on white people are also ... comitted by white people. And in Mexico, where most people are Mexicans ... most crimes are comitted by Mexicans!

That is one reason why statistics (any statistic) have always to be taken with a grain of salt.

I think the point is that you're more likely, as a black guy, to get killed by a black man than a police officer - which takes the rug out from under the people saying the police are brutalizing the black communities regularly (keep in mind that isn't to say that there isn't police violence).

The issue is more socioeconomic than race, though. Black neighborhoods are, typically, completely devoid of communal/social programs.

There's a city in Los Angeles county that's had a pretty good project of working with the next generation of Black youth by getting them to participate in after-school sports run by Police officers. They invite the parents as well who help by being there for their kids and also participate in small tasks like being a linesman or referee. Really good program since it'll help the community be more willing to work with Police officers, and the Police officers will feel more comfortable patrolling the neighborhoods and checking up on people that live there.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Probably, but I don't think anyone here has ever made the case that this was a 'race' issue in the first place, like the kind of stuff we saw in the 1950s.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Yeah, blacks killing blacks is something allready being dealt with: Gangs. Gangs usually target other gangs. So one black gang will attack another black gang.

Eh, read a newspaper, innocent people get killed in the crossfire all the time. Often children in their own homes by stray bullets. Gang members aren't disciplined shots. They don't go to the range much.

I think the point is that you're more likely, as a black guy, to get killed by a black man than a police officer - which takes the rug out from under the people saying the police are brutalizing the black communities regularly (keep in mind that isn't to say that there isn't police violence).

Thanks for the context, we're talking in the context of BLM here of course. Frankly, it makes for a more outrageous narrative when a cop kills someone than, ho hum, another black dude shot another black dude.

 

[zegh8578]

Eh, read a newspaper, innocent people get killed in the crossfire all the time. Often children in their own homes by stray bullets. Gang members aren't disciplined shots. They don't go to the range much.

You talked about blacks killing blacks.
But feel free to change the topic about blacks killing whites, blacks killing asians, blacks killing native americans, blacks killing everything that moves, I'll play along.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

The topic is BLM. Which, if that is the premise, wouldn't we want to look at the biggest risk to that community and not canards? Black lives DO matter, and focusing efforts in the areas of greatest risk would seem to be the best way to go about it.

 

[MutantScalper]

I doubt GOP and Trump are about to allocate significant funds into improving black communities, or improving things like public education, public health care etc. that would help out the mostly poor blacks.

 

[DarkCorp]

Why so much use of the word Black? Aren't public funds supposed to go to the public, AKA EVERYONE, who is in need?

Also, we have open enrollment in the U.S. so people can have their kids go to any school of their choice. It is not like we have some archaic fucking segregated system where races are only allowed into certain schools. The idea that the poor are purposefully herded into shitty schools and not given any other choice is a convenient myth the left likes to beat the populace with.

Although poverty is complex, there can be no argument that personal responsibility directly effects ones financial situation.

1. As stated n other threads, the family unit is KEY. Having a stable family means free babysitting, cheap lodging, the difference between either a single or multiple income sources, division of responsibility/chores, which leads to stress, etc. Educating people to stay away from shit heads and to NOT procreate with them is VITAL.

2. Education in financial management. This should often come from the family but schools should get in on this as well. In the U.S., we have stupid fucks who scream how they can't pay tuition payments or rent but they have enough money to pimp out their cars and buy the latest fucking I phone or video game consoles. Americans are fucking spoiled.

Anyways, before we sink money into an investment, lets make sure the investment isn't some scam like it kind of is now. I would prefer something akin to Job Corp, a program that teaches people a skill so they can get hired and earn a paycheck instead of some useless fucking degree.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Although poverty is complex, there can be no argument that personal responsibility directly effects ones financial situation.

Depends, I have a more nuanced view on the matter, it really is important to think about this from a macro and micro-economic point of view.

Many people, but americans in particular hold this view, that if everyone simply worked hard enough, if they got a high enough education, you name it, than it would be possible to achieve a relative amount of wealth, for the lack of better explanations let us simply say the 'capitalistic' way or the 'american dream'.
But this doesn't work with reality, no matter how you look at it. First it isn't even clear what 'wealth' is, since it can mean from having barrely enough to survive to beeing a billionair. But in this context I would say, let us take the average american, or the 'middle' class, since we are after all talking about black american citizens and poor communities in the US - including white people, so called trailer trash.

Now ask your self this, can every human being achieve that? In America? Or even world wide? This kind of wealth? Physics says, no. Absolutely not. If you gave every human a car, a house, some iphone, a flat screen and computer you could turn that stuff on, once and the world would be gone. Half of the worlds grain production is spend for meat as food for the animals while a large portion of the world is at the same time starving, and most of the meat is consumed by the western world which makes maybe 30% of the worlds population. Now imagine you would push ALL the people on this planet to what the average American or German owns, earns and eats.

Hard work, will never ever get everyone rich or out of poverity and in to the middle class. That's literaly impossible. We would need at least 2 aditional planets of resources and probably a third one just for the garbage ... but as I said we have to look at it from the macro economic scale as well, which means yes people have a certain responsibility when it comes to their decisions and finances that is very true. But it is a bit more complex than just that, as the survivor bias clearly shows - some people make it, so everyone can make it! But that's a fallacy.

I am very much anti capitalistic, but not because of some deranged ideology, as a leftist I do recognize that capitalism or at least parts of it has been very beneficial to the western world for the last 150 years, but I am against it simply out of scientific reasons. It's not a system that can work for everyone. Infact, it is a system that depends a lot on uneven distribution of wealth and resources, but it's not likely that people will deal with that for ever, there is no rule that says Africa or the middle east will always stay like they are now. And people in the US or Germany will not tolerate to much of a difference here either.

What the capitalistic system created though, was probably one of the most important inventions of this century, at least in Europe, and that is the wellfare state which if applied correctly, is the real concept for the future.

 

[CaptJ]

This is going to be unpopular here but here it goes.
As a person outside the US, i'm totally with BLM. Fanatically so. If this was fallout nv, i'd go with the BLM ending. My outside perceptive, with whatever clarity and ignorance it may bring goes like this:

your great grandfathers brought these peope in chains , to make slaves of them. They were officially treated as inferior to the white until very recently, round about the 60s and civil rights movement ( when your secret services freakin' murdered their leaders by the way). They weren't even in the movies that much up until the 80s, and then their depiction was still shit. Fast foward a few years, and a random browsing on youtube shows tons videos of cops shooting them down like dogs and totally getting away with it. And you guys are annoyed and offended by their hate and minimal violence ( looting, burning cars etc ) and are calling them a hate group. What the hell, dudes

As a person outside the US, I'm disgusted by the idea of some moron who doesn't have to feel the consequences of the rioting shrugging off damages and injures as minor or for the greater good.

Imagine this extreme hypothetical situation. Imagine a society where Black people are enslaved; and to balance the injustice every year, a White child gets randomly selected to be crucified and immolated in public. The Aristocratic class which is exempted from this random draw calls this an acceptable evil as long as slavery exist. The Black people who approve of this measure are given a spotlight. The Black people who disapprove of this are called race traitors. The poor White people who disapprove are labeled as treasonous and a justification of these measure regardless if their anger is directed at the Black people or Aristocratic class.

If you find this analogy distasteful, then stop using bullshit thought experiments that don't work in real life. Communism doesn't work because some people are simply better than others and people just want what they can't have. Anarchy doesn't work because rules and authority (someone to either decide, enforce, or execute the rules) are necessary for cooperation which its benefits outweights individual ability. Finally, the Ends Justifies the Means isn't a moral system because no one wants to admit that they are wrong.

 

[R.Graves]

Non-white nations WERE not as advanced as the whites.

apart from countries in asia, they still aren't.

 

[DarkCorp]

@Crni Vuk

Crni, you seem to be under the impression that human beings will control themselves and not try to 'cheat', the system, which every communist country has proven doesn't happen. People will ALWAYS look out for number one first, especially when they start to feel the crunch. It is easy for Europe to have a welfare state as long as their primary military expenditures are borne by the U.S. It is easy to take the moral high ground when Europe doesn't have to deal with political maneuvering as the bigger powers that be do it for them.

But what happens if Europe was forced to create and manage their own defenses? Would they still have free stuff? And if they don't, will you trust that Europeans won't flip the fuck out that the benefits they always enjoyed, start getting cut down? Would they still have free shit if the European countries were to have a massive influx in immigration/refugees? How would Germany handle giving benefits to some 280 to 300 some MILLION people? A few years back, students got pissed when the British government raised tuition. What happens when more than just tuition is on the chopping block? Look at what happened in France. The thought of increasing the workweek caused protests and riots nationwide. In Greece, the politicians had to promise, again and again, there would be no austerity in order to get elected. Massive protests there too.

People have been and continue to be fucking selfish. When there is plenty to go around ALA Venezuela, cool beans man. The government throws out free shit like nobodies business and the populace eats it up. But what happens when the oil revenue is gone? The populace isn't going to return that money. In fact, they just resent the government even MORE because the free shit train has left the country. Life doesn't work in an ideal way where good feelings and the desire to do good conquers all.

Look, you know I am not totally against welfare, nobody here really is. There should be a safety net for those folks who have EARNED it. In life, sometimes shit happens we cannot control, hence that is what welfare is for. EMTALA for example, is a great example of socialism and why we need to fight for it SOMETIMES. However, make no mistake, its not for people to abuse and get fat off the system. Social programs have always been meant to be a temporary measure, not a continuous free train of benefits for a persons entire lifespan.

Point 2:

Of course the rags to riches myth is kind of bullshit. It takes opportunity AND chance to really succeed. In the same vein however, personal choice is a big factor too. If one is too 'morally superior', to do what needs to be done for a promotion than it is nobodies fault except for that individual. We have all seen this scene from movies. The hotshot lawyer returns home to a working class family. The lawyer is immediately judged by her family as unscrupulous by one and has her hands checked by another. She is told her hands are 'too soft', and that the lawyer hasn't earned money the 'proper', way, through back breaking labor, like others people. All too often, people are given chance and opportunity but do not have the desire or are too morally superior to make a difference.

My biggest point, look at the two rappers who arguably PIONEERED the genre of 'fuck the police', rappers Ice T and Cube. Guess what? The guys who were screaming the loudest about hating cops, now PLAY THEM ALL THE TIME in media. One could argue they sold out but at the very least, they did what fucking needed to be done to get rich. They didn't just sit around and piss and moan about how unfair the fucking world is yet is too morally superior about staying in the ghetto, to get the fuck out. You either stay poor and keep your moral superiority or you say to yourself, 'I am unhappy about my fucking situation, I am getting the fuck out. Sure some who pretend to be my friends will hate me. But if they do, they aren't really my friends as TRUE friends, would like me to make something better of myself'.

@R.Graves

They do not have to be on par with the west or Asia to be considered doing well. The whole point was that the kind of hardcore racism that was around the turn of the century and before simply doesn't exist anymore. I mean, people believed in fucking Phrenology for Christ sakes and that Africans were little better than animals. In the west especially, the rise of liberalism is proof that extreme racist beliefs have been fading ever since (with a huge leap during the civil rights era) and continues to fade except for the hardcore minority.

 

[Tiny Tim]

As a person outside the US, I'm disgusted by the idea of some moron who doesn't have to feel the consequences of the rioting shrugging off damages and injures as minor or for the greater good.

Imagine this extreme hypothetical situation. Imagine a society where Black people are enslaved; and to balance the injustice every year, a White child gets randomly selected to be crucified and immolated in public. The Aristocratic class which is exempted from this random draw calls this an acceptable evil as long as slavery exist. The Black people who approve of this measure are given a spotlight. The Black people who disapprove of this are called race traitors. The poor White people who disapprove are labeled as treasonous and a justification of these measure regardless if their anger is directed at the Black people or Aristocratic class.

If you find this analogy distasteful, then stop using bullshit thought experiments that don't work in real life. Communism doesn't work because some people are simply better than others and people just want what they can't have. Anarchy doesn't work because rules and authority (someone to either decide, enforce, or execute the rules) are necessary for cooperation which its benefits outweights individual ability. Finally, the Ends Justifies the Means isn't a moral system because no one wants to admit that they are wrong.

No, you don't understand. Burning a car isn't helping anyone ( just like in your example killing a " white child" would be .. pointless? ) and beyond that it is doing harm to the car owners etc ( not as much as killing a child though, so the analogy is rather extreme either way ). So, yes, burning a car is wrong. Is that what you're trying to prove? It shouldn't be that difficult to explain .

The thing is, black people are actually being killed today and they have been for years. This is not an hypothetical senario on an internet forum, i'm talking about real life. And they aren't killed by random criminals who would be prosecuted if caught, but by the police, often on camera.
And without protesting, no one would care about it but the victims and their families. Hell, historically a lot of things would be different for black people if not for protesting. You ever think about that or you care more about freaking burned cars that you wouldn't sacrifice for the greater good or something?


And i really don't understand the point of your last paragraph, unless you are somehow under the misconception that the laws and rules we have today ( call them capitalism ) somehow came to be peacefully and not by wars, revolutions and car-burning communist evil stuff like that. Even then, let's stick to BLM for now and we can have another thread about political systems.

Also, try to refrain from calling other people morons.

 

[Tiny Tim]

Actually, this thread is indeed toxic and being insulted for not caring about looting when by applying exactly the same logic you don't care about human lives is kind of upsetting when i think about it. I don't think there's anything to be discussed under these terms, so go ahead with your anti-BLM manifesto.
I guess i'd better stick to fallout discussions in the future, if anywhere.

 

[Prone Squanderer]

No, you don't understand. Burning a car isn't helping anyone ( just like in your example killing a " white child" would be .. pointless? ) and beyond that it is doing harm to the car owners etc ( not as much as killing a child though, so the analogy is rather extreme either way ). So, yes, burning a car is wrong. Is that what you're trying to prove? It shouldn't be that difficult to explain .

I think he objects to the way you appear to suggest that people having their property stolen and destroyed is expected and that they shouldn't be annoyed due to police shooting videos and implying because of the actions of slave owners centuries ago it means white people alive now have to pay for it. By the way, assuming all white people on here had ancestors involved in the slave trade isn't polite, even if that wasn't your intention.

your great grandfathers brought these peope in chains , to make slaves of them. They were officially treated as inferior to the white until very recently, round about the 60s and civil rights movement ( when your secret services freakin' murdered their leaders by the way). They weren't even in the movies that much up until the 80s, and then their depiction was still shit. Fast foward a few years, and a random browsing on youtube shows tons videos of cops shooting them down like dogs and totally getting away with it. And you guys are annoyed and offended by their hate and minimal violence ( looting, burning cars etc ) and are calling them a hate group. What the hell, dudes

I guess i'd better stick to fallout discussions in the future, if anywhere.

Yeah politics is messy. I've nearly had arguments with people I would never fall out with otherwise because of it. Not to mention half the time I don't know enough about a situation to properly comment on it.

 

[CaptJ]

And they aren't killed by random criminals who would be prosecuted if caught, but by the police, often on camera.
And without protesting, no one would care about it but the victims and their families. Hell, historically a lot of things would be different for black people if not for protesting.

1. Rioting isn't protesting.
2. Why can't they pick better examples?
3. Most of the media refuses to condemn the rioters.
4. Police brutality isn't an exclusively Black problem.

You ever think about that or you care more about freaking burned cars that you wouldn't sacrifice for the greater good or something?

Sacrifice implies purposeful destruction.

And i really don't understand the point of your last paragraph, unless you are somehow under the misconception that the laws and rules we have today ( call them capitalism ) somehow came to be peacefully and not by wars, revolutions and car-burning communist evil stuff like that. Even then, let's stick to BLM for now and we can have another thread about political systems.

Laws are social contracts. It is not so much about right or wrong but what is socially acceptable. When I eat a chicken, I don't think that I'm sacrificing the chicken for the greater good. If an animal kills someone to protect itself, it isn't an evil action. The animal has a different set of priorities.

Also, try to refrain from calling other people morons.

That was me being nice. My first instinct was to call you a retard.

being insulted for not caring about looting when by applying exactly the same logic you don't care about human lives is kind of upsetting when i think about it.

I was insulted that you find it (What is the nicest way to put?) a speck in an otherwise noble cause. Bad things happen everywhere, everytime. What bothers me is when it becomes socially acceptable.

 

[Tiny Tim]

You were "insulted" by my view and then proceeded to insult me. And instead of apologizing, you say this

That was me being nice. My first instinct was to call you a retard.

i really don't know what to say to you, man

 

[Crni Vuk]

@Crni Vuk

Crni, you seem to be under the impression that human beings will control themselves and not try to 'cheat', the system, which every communist country has proven doesn't happen.

And in capitalism they don't? Who's currently runing the show right now? Trump and his goons. You have the Frogs in charge and expect them to drain the swamp. Good luck! They even got the alligators in to the swamp as well. And if the System wasn't an oligarchy before, it definetly is one now and you can't even denny it anymore, the government never had so many millionairs and billionairs in office - I guess that is one thing you have to thank Trump for, instead of having the Lobbyists behind him, he simply put them in charge. I always thought a democracy is meant to represent the people, not to be a nanny state for the rich. How comes there are so many Goldman Sachs members in office now? Or people that one way or another have ties to them?
Besides, I said wellfare state, not communism, communism as 'idea' is something that can be used as inspiration. Of course it doesn't work in reality it is a purely philosophical idea.

However, we are slowly reaching a point where we have to ask our self in what kind of future society we want to live in, if we want to have a society that at least tries to share the resources so every average person can enjoy a somewhat decent live? - And that is possible. Or do we want a pyramid with Billions of poor and a few relatively rich on top? And would the majority of people actually accept such a system? Will Africa (as a whole) be satisfied with their current situation? Will South America or Asia simply accept that 30% of the population consumes more than 40% of the worlds resources for their wealth? In other words, keeping the status quo. And I have very serious doubts about that. Once the 'real' distribution battle begins.

What ever decisions we make one point is more than obvious, we can't turn the clocks back, that's impossible. Some politicians want to get back to the glorious 1950s when the US was at the peak of it's political influence, some want to get back to the 1980s with Reagan and his promise of a stronger America with a really clear boogyman, where the Americans are the good guys and the Soviets the red menace, the axis of evil!
Simply put a time with huge industrial grown, a minimum of regulations and where every 'citizen' could shape his own fortune trough hard and good work!

And currently we see how some parts of the System really try to fight 'reality', like the Oil and Coal industry and the people working for them, or the financial sector. But global warming isn't a chinese hoax and the new form of automatition that might lead to a 50% unemployment rate, is currently on it's way, and we will see all of that in our life time! Just watch the video, and tell me the US governent is already working on solutions for that issue.


There is simply no way around it, resources like oil, coal and gas are better left in the ground and the sad part of it is, the alternatives are not used, not because of some incredible technical difficulty, but simply because of political decisions. And you can tell people as often as you want that all they have to do is to be responsible, working hard or getting a better education, when there is a robot on the horizon that can do everything, just better - we are still living in an intrinsic system where both schools and society is creating people that associate their wellbeing and worth with how succesfull they are in their 'job'. You are only as much worth to society, as the tasks that you can perform.

Right now, we are facing some huge global problems, like climate change and mass unemployment of an unprecedented magnitude, and we would have to think NOW(!) about concepts for the future, but so far I see no one neither the industry, the rich nor politics really talking about it or trying to do something. Infact, you have a government that is full of dennyers, lobbysists and rich and that probably don't even know anything about automatition and is continuing to blame the poor for beeing poor.

I was insulted that you find it (What is the nicest way to put?) a speck in an otherwise noble cause. Bad things happen everywhere, everytime. What bothers me is when it becomes socially acceptable.

You could say the same about the 'rust belt' of the US, where they had everything from Democrats to Republicans making decisions and where it was at some point simply 'socially acceptable' that it was the poor region of the US.

People are very irrational beings, and I am always surprised how quick some are in judging others without showing the right amount of empathy. Of course rioters and looters are 'criminals' in that sense and what they do is not a very elaborate form of political expression, but we're looking at this like trough a lense, you see that one image of aburning car. But what bout the guy that threw the fire bomb? Maybe he lost a brother or father 10 years go? We're talkingabout people that have been simply put completely ignored by big politics and society on a large scale, living for decades in poor comunities, while also feeling discriminated (what ever if that is true or not, is a whole different question). Is it so unexpected when people collectively express their irrational rage?

I think you Americans really don't understand the political powder keg you have here. The civil war in Yugoslavia pretty much happend over night and many people believed it would be just a short period, when the Yugoslavian army moved in to Slovenia. I am not saying there is a huge chance to see a massive upricing in the US, but you never know what might happen in the future.

 

[DarkCorp]

@Crni Vuk

All those people. Great words Crni and something to remember. Simply put, the utopian conditions you speak of just simply cannot exist with the current levels of science and technology. If we had things your way Crni, the world would be equal, equally POOR. You act like if we share, then many people around the globe will have some kind of massive increase in standard of living which is not what would happen. There are simply too many fucking people out there and, in your OWN words. If there is one thing you can easily rely on people to do is, it is fucking. In an ideal world, human population would limit itself, and we ALL would have enough resources to go around. In reality, this simply isn't the case. You can only cut up a pig into so many pieces before the pieces are so small that the serving itself will not help hunger in any meaningful way. As technology and science evolve, we will get there, it is as inevitable as the cotton gin that helped usher slavery out the door.

I brought up Europe for one simple reason. You saw what happens when people, lose a tiny amount of benefits, that they have gotten used to having for a long time. Now imagine if we were to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce benefits, all for the end result of increasing the standard of living of the global poor by .000000000000009 percent. It WON'T happen. Even if it WERE to happen, the change is MINIMAL but the results for the richer nations would be very drastic. Again, raise tuition in the U.K. or pass legislation increasing the hourly work week in France. You saw the protests, and in some cases, riots.

Africa and S. America may not like the status quo but changing it is THEIR job. And no this doesn't mean they are going to go into some Fallout style resource wars against the west and Asia, they would get annihilated. They can only hope for change if the path they take is a realistic one instead of a system akin to N. Korea. Some ridiculous notion that, as long as we persevere and blame outsiders for our problems, we will succeed.

For someone who claims to take a balanced view of things, you all too easily get roped into the belief that the only reason we do not go green is because of evil capitalism. It couldn't be because relying on a full green solution simply isn't practical for the power requirements of the west, again, in YOUR own words, we are pretty spoiled. It couldn't be because the cost of this go green solution would be incredibly expensive for the average consumer, as I have already pointed out in earlier discussions. It couldn't be because, China for example, is an authoritarian state where the government could just push the green agenda it wants because the country is polluted as fuck and tax the fuck out of the populace to pay for the cost. China, where the standard of living for the common man is nowhere near like it is in the west and CONTINUES to HEAVILY rely on coal and oil, to provide for the bulk of power needs of the populace.

There is a system in place that where people value how well they perform at their job. This system is pretty widespread and will continue to grow, not because of some Mr. Burns type of evil, but simply because of human nature. We love our I phones, our Xbox Ones and PS4s. Some people love playing in a contest where people constantly try to one up each other in some attempt to show off how much they have. Some people want their ridiculously big houses or boats or what the fuck ever. We like MONEY, even if it is in varying degrees. Humans LIKE having stuff to play with and to eat, it is that simple. No amount of 'schooling', will change that. Perhaps the biggest example, the PRC, a country that was poor and communist (where the populace was schooled in not wanting too much stuff), realized that their 'schooling', wasn't working and people still wanted more shit.

By the way, I brought up communism/socialism because it is a basic part of my discussion. Either people adopt Socialism by choice, because nations have the capital to do so because they do not have a military to maintain, or nations go communist, AKA, Socialism by force.

 

[Jogre]

You act like if we share, then many people around the globe will have some kind of massive increase in standard of living which is not what would happen. There are simply too many fucking people out there and, in your OWN words. If there is one thing you can easily rely on people to do is, it is fucking. In an ideal world, human population would limit itself, and we ALL would have enough resources to go around. In reality, this simply isn't the case. You can only cut up a pig into so many pieces before the pieces are so small that the serving itself will not help hunger in any meaningful way

You say that, but you are probably typing that on a PC.

I'm willing to bet that you always knew there would be food on your table.

Do you own an Iphone?, Or any other apple products?

Ever ordered Lobster or Steak in a restaurant?

Meanwhile there are people in the world who don't even have electricity. There are people in the world dying of hunger, and of preventable diseases. How much on average per month do you give to try and help people worse off than you?

You say that there's not enough resources to go around, but the western world live such decadent and excessive lifestyles, while some people in the world have literally nothing, that I'm honestly suspicious of that claim.

Africa and S. America may not like the status quo but changing it is THEIR job

The main reason for poverty in those parts of the world is government corruption. Those who actually have the resources to change there countries tend not to care, while those who want change are too powerless to do anything.

A farmer who can't feed his own family would want to put an end to starvation, but wouldn't have the power or influence to do so, meanwhile the high-ups who have the power to do so are profiting off of others misery so don't care.

If we just leave people in poor countries to there own devices, nothing will ever get fixed, because it's a never-ending cycle of the powerless being downtrodden.