Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.
-
@macha said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@ortallus blink blink bliiiiiiiink Wait, they're doing 5 weddings and putting the pictures in big magazines, and think they can get it done for exposure?!?!?
FUCK THAT SHIT
They're essentially asking for a 50+ hour workweek, for multiple people, plus materials, and for it to be done for 'exposure'.
image url) -
@ortallus DOUBLE up on FUCK THAT SHIT.
A netflix series? SRSLY?
-
@macha said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@ortallus DOUBLE up on FUCK THAT SHIT.
A netflix series? SRSLY?
-
@ortallus Oh hey, let's pick a bunch of conventionally gorgeous people what could fit in on any CW show, and let them talk and talk and get attached to people in a bubble, and then cause drama in RL?
FUCK THIS SHIT.
-
@macha said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@ortallus Oh hey, let's pick a bunch of conventionally gorgeous people what could fit in on any CW show, and let them talk and talk and get attached to people in a bubble, and then cause drama in RL?
FUCK THIS SHIT.
While also managing to fuck over one of the most struggling professions because pandemics don't create a lot of opportunities to take pictures of groups of people.
Kind'a glad I'd already put a pause on my Netflix account, because this would have made me cancel my sub, for sure. This is f'n degrading and dehumanizing on so many levels.
-
"Nobody wants to work anymore," I keep hearing.
Motherfuckers of course nobody wants to work, that's what work is. If they wanted to work you'd be charging them for the privilege. The whole thing is that you need to pay us to come work anyway.
If you won't offer people enough to work that's not a them problem it's a you problem.
-
@insomniac7809 said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
"Nobody wants to work anymore," I keep hearing.
Motherfuckers of course nobody wants to work, that's what work is. If they wanted to work you'd be charging them for the privilege. The whole thing is that you need to pay us to come work anyway.
If you won't offer people enough to work that's not a them problem it's a you problem.
AKA Capitalists when they realize capitalism doesn't fucking work.
-
@insomniac7809 said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
"Nobody wants to work anymore," I keep hearing.
Motherfuckers of course nobody wants to work, that's what work is.
I think people want to work. We just want our work to be fulfilling and humane; and our overlords frown on that because then we start getting uppity ideas about being people instead of numbers on spreadsheets.
-
@greenflashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@insomniac7809 said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
"Nobody wants to work anymore," I keep hearing.
Motherfuckers of course nobody wants to work, that's what work is.
I think people want to work. We just want our work to be fulfilling and humane; and our overlords frown on that because then we start getting uppity ideas about being people instead of numbers on spreadsheets.
^ I actually enjoy working and would continue working even if I were independently wealthy, because I like having a routine, feeling productive, and especially like working for companies that I feel make a positive difference for people, even if I'm not in a customer-facing role.
I do not enjoy working for chronically toxic jackasses that underpay and underappreciate, if not outright abuse, their employees and would like to have the option of tossing up deuces as I walk backwards away from my desk.
-
The easiest way to solve unemployment is pay everyone a UBI, everyone works two or three days a week. Everyone would work three days, if they're able. Productivity stays the same, wages stay the same (though they should be higher in general anyway) and everyone has time to be creative, see their family, engage in hobbies.
Done.
He/Him
-
@tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
The easiest way to solve unemployment is pay everyone a UBI, everyone works two or three days a week. Everyone would work three days, if they're able. Productivity stays the same, wages stay the same (though they should be higher in general anyway) and everyone has time to be creative, see their family, engage in hobbies.
"Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings.
"Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,
"To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:
"And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age."
-- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
Yes, the proposal of a UBI is as American as apple pie.
-
@tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
The easiest way to solve unemployment is pay everyone a UBI, everyone works two or three days a week. Everyone would work three days, if they're able. Productivity stays the same, wages stay the same (though they should be higher in general anyway) and everyone has time to be creative, see their family, engage in hobbies.
Done.
UBI will never happen so long as corporations control the congress of this country, which they absolutely do.
As Aria pointed out, if employees had the ability to quit when they feel abused, capitalism would fall apart, because abusing employees and not compensating them is a core precept of capitalism.
Add to that the fact that it's basically illegal to not have a job/income (See: Laws that punish the homeless) and you have a nice tidy system of control over the masses that the privileged wealthy exploitive class of America, of which 99% of congress is a member, will never allow such a change to happen.
-
@ortallus said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
As Aria pointed out, if employees had the ability to quit when they feel abused, capitalism would fall apart, because abusing employees and not compensating them is a core precept of capitalism.
I see this more often that I care to admit, and each time I do I retract my knee-jerk reaction to counter and argue. Instead, I will just quote the following:
Every system which endeavours, either, by extraordinary encouragements, to draw towards a particular species of industry a greater share of the capital of the society than what would naturally go to it; or, by extraordinary restraints, to force from a particular species of industry some share of the capital which would otherwise be employed in it; is in reality subversive of the great purpose which it means to promote. It retards, instead of accelerating, the progress of the society towards real wealth and greatness; and diminishes, instead of increasing, the real value of the annual produce of its land and labour.
Translation: abuse of the capitalist order destroys capitalism.
-
@ganymede said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@ortallus said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
As Aria pointed out, if employees had the ability to quit when they feel abused, capitalism would fall apart, because abusing employees and not compensating them is a core precept of capitalism.
I see this more often that I care to admit, and each time I do I retract my knee-jerk reaction to counter and argue. Instead, I will just quote the following:
Every system which endeavours, either, by extraordinary encouragements, to draw towards a particular species of industry a greater share of the capital of the society than what would naturally go to it; or, by extraordinary restraints, to force from a particular species of industry some share of the capital which would otherwise be employed in it; is in reality subversive of the great purpose which it means to promote. It retards, instead of accelerating, the progress of the society towards real wealth and greatness; and diminishes, instead of increasing, the real value of the annual produce of its land and labour.
Translation: abuse of the capitalist order destroys capitalism.
Okay, let me amend/edit:
It is a core precept of MODERN, which is to say LATE-STAGE capitalism.
Better?
Because let's face it, modern capitalism isn't about increasing wealth for society, it's about increasing wealth for the limited and few individuals regardless of the cost.
I agree that ideological capitalism is a wonderful thing in which everyone benefits.
But the same could be said about socialism or even communism.
The problem with ALL of these systems isn't the systems, it's the corruption of the systems by the powers that be.
-
@ortallus said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
It is a core precept of MODERN, which is to say LATE-STAGE capitalism.
Better?
Not really.
People use "late-stage" as if to suggest that it's going to lead to something different and less abusive. No one I've listened to or read has proposed any inevitable outcome, and people have been predicting the death-knell for capitalism -- from right-wing crackpots to left-wing pundits -- since I was a little kid. And I can't say that this is "modern" capitalism because it is contrary to everything I learned of "modern" theories on capitalism.
No, we live in a time of abusive capitalism, which isn't going to work under actual capitalist precepts. And we can talk until we are blue in the face as to why this is, but it's not going to get us anywhere.
Socialism is a modest improvement to this, but only insofar as the people who do end up controlling the means of production aren't dickbags which, if homeowners' associations are any indication, won't be the case.
-
@ganymede said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@ortallus said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
It is a core precept of MODERN, which is to say LATE-STAGE capitalism.
Better?
Not really.
People use "late-stage" as if to suggest that it's going to lead to something different and less abusive. No one I've listened to or read has proposed any inevitable outcome, and people have been predicting the death-knell for capitalism -- from right-wing crackpots to left-wing pundits -- since I was a little kid. And I can't say that this is "modern" capitalism because it is contrary to everything I learned of "modern" theories on capitalism.
No, we live in a time of abusive capitalism, which isn't going to work under actual capitalist precepts. And we can talk until we are blue in the face as to why this is, but it's not going to get us anywhere.
Socialism is a modest improvement to this, but only insofar as the people who do end up controlling the means of production aren't dickbags which, if homeowners' associations are any indication, won't be the case.
@ganymede said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Socialism is a modest improvement to this, but only insofar as the people who do end up controlling the means of production aren't dickbags which, if homeowners' associations are any indication, won't be the case.
Yes. Because corporations, on the other hand, especially the fossil fuel industries, are so much better at serving the public good.
The CEOs and board of any corporation sees humanity as 7 billion opportunities to increase their own personal wealth, and that of their shareholders, and nothing more.
-
...I'll just be over here in a corner, waving my little anarcho-syndicalist flag and reminding everyone that America doesn't have a "left-wing" party but it's super cute when folks think we do.
-
@aria said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
...I'll just be over here in a corner, waving my little anarcho-syndicalist flag and reminding everyone that America doesn't have a "left-wing" party but it's super cute when folks think we do.
I'd be interested in learning more about your ideology.
-
I honestly don't know much about anarcho-syndacalist, but wouldn't anarchy, technically, be the extreme far far far FAR right? Absolutely no governmental regulation?
-
This should probably be moved to the Politics forum more than anything else, but there's several pages of posts here that I can't do that with.
But to strip it down to it's very core:
No. It would not be far far far far right, because as I said above, we don't really have left-wing parties in the United States, and so almost every bit of familiarity we have with any sort of libertarian politics is with what are generally extreme right views.
In a very, very general sense, anarcho-syndicalism posits that the state as it exists now serves only one purpose -- the protection of private property, to the privilege of the very, very few. This focuses particularly on capital goods, aka "the means of production" for goods and services. The other two kinds of producer goods are land and labor. The latter is especially important in anarcho-syndicalism because it essentially and fundamentally connects economic activity with political activity and as much direct action on behalf of labor (aka, workers) wherever possible.
The classic example of this is the worker's union. Anarcho-syndicalism is very, very, very pro-union and sees the ideal economic state as one where a series of union-managed workplaces send delegates up the chain in increasingly high-level structures until you reach the federation level. Here's a handy-dandy chart I stole from Wikipedia.
Long story short, it posits that the people closest to an issue are the ones that know it best and should have the greatest say over how it's managed and how resources are allocated.
I should note that anarcho-syndicalism is extremely focused on labor to the exclusion of almost all else, though, so if you're interested in broader anarchic movements, you might want to consider green syndicalism (syndicalism + environmentalism) and anarcho-socialism, which quite closely related but includes other concerns like individual freedoms.
https://whatiswrongwith.me/Mia
There were never any good old days. They are today. They are tomorrow. It's a stupid thing we say, cursing tomorrow with sorrow. -- Gogol Bordello
