|
Forwaded this 'government is acting patriarchal when it steps in to help woman equality' youtube video by my libertarian friend. Edit: She admits woman are discriminated against, but some of it is deserved because of woman's choices. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOsJMV1fbkQ She also says something laughable about 41 percent that is unexplainable factors but percent of what I am not sure. Oh, just 41 percent of woman pay equality is unexplainable. That's no big deal,right? Shes saying government has no business to help her out from being discriminated because that Is discrimination itself. 
Kneel Before Zog fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Nov 30, 2012 |
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
Well when she graduates high school I'm sure she'll realize what's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
She works in a male dominated industry where shes discriminated against while attending grad school.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Kneel Before Zog posted:She works in a male dominated industry where shes discriminated against while attending grad school. When she's 40 and is working under someone she trained, her opinions will be somewhat different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:When she's 40 and is working under someone she trained, her opinions will be somewhat different. This is in no way a given.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:This is in no way a given. Yeah, but the alternative is so much more depressing. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Yeah, but the alternative is so much more depressing. I grew up in a household with a mother who worked for General Motors and eventually became the Director of Die Engineering for their Flint office; She to this day refuses to acknowledge any hint of sexism at her job, even though her immediate boss was sued by several female employees for being passed over for raises and promotions on sexist grounds. Fortunately she doesn't think affirmative action and similar programs are hellspawn, but I don't think she'd bat an eye if they were on the chopping block either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
And everyone becomes a Republican when they grow up and get a real job. People sacrifice reality for ego all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
nsaP posted:And everyone becomes a Republican when they grow up and get a real job. I'm trying to figure out what happened to me then. When I was in high school, either picking up the vibes from my dad, and likely sucking in every stupid opinion my then-boyfriend had (like the mentally disabled shouldn't be allowed in public school), I was a raging Ann Coulter-like bitch. You slut, you don't need an abortion, you need a loving wakeup call! You're a stupid slut! And you don't need a scholarship, you need to stop being lazy! You need to stop pumping out babies! You're all a bunch of loving leeches! So either it was going to the tiny community college that saved my loving mind and gave me empathy, or it was that combined with my dad leaving the family for his girlfriend and the boyfriend breaking up with me over the phone. Who knows, maybe the bleeding-heart liberal is just a massive nose-snub to them. Gentlemen, I gotta thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Kneel Before Zog posted:Forwaded this 'government is acting patriarchal when it steps in to help woman equality' youtube video by my libertarian friend. It's a classic libertarian canard that preventing discrimination is a form of discrimination and persecution because it condescendingly assumes that the discriminated against group(s) (e.g. Blacks, Latinos, women, LGBTQ, etc.) can't make it on their own AND it forces the discriminators to do things with their property (like, pay people equally irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.) against their wills. The other part I like is how she glosses over that "10%" of pay disparity caused by women caring for children and relatives. She's completely obtuse about how this is in itself a form of sexism because women are expected to compromise their careers and other goals, but men are not. It's just assumed that if a relative is ill or a couple has kids or if some other family-related matter arises that the woman will be the one to put her life outside the home on hold and tend to the matter, while her husband/boyfriend/fiance/etc. gets to keep his career and life outside the home. There was an absolutely atrocious anti-feminist editorial by Phyllis Schlafly's niece in the Terrible Editorials thread about how the author will tell her daughter she has to choose between career and family if she ever says she wants to be a neurosurgeon. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/#ixzz2DHJiIM4M http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mamas-dont-let-your-babies-grow-be-brain-surgeons Beyond simply being an isolated form of sexism, this actually contributes to other sources of pay and work gender disparity, because the losses in time for career development caused by having to tend to family matters puts women behind their male counterparts. Thus, these kinds of gender norms snowball into increasing gender disparities in workplaces and hinder attempts to achieve parity. That is not to say women cannot independently choose to focus more time on family matters or even put their careers on hold to do so, but there clearly are very strong social pressures for women to sacrifice their careers for family while such pressures are minor to nonexistent for men. Countblanc posted:I grew up in a household with a mother who worked for General Motors and eventually became the Director of Die Engineering for their Flint office; She to this day refuses to acknowledge any hint of sexism at her job, even though her immediate boss was sued by several female employees for being passed over for raises and promotions on sexist grounds. Fortunately she doesn't think affirmative action and similar programs are hellspawn, but I don't think she'd bat an eye if they were on the chopping block either. The problem is that conservatives, libertarians, and other assorted regressives have so successfully demonized not only affirmative action but also any attempts to simply stop active discrimination like gender pay disparities. They propagandize to the public about how affirmative action and any anti-discrimination policies are condescending and reduce the value of any achievements by anyone who was helped by these programs or simply wasn't robbed of what they rightfully earned, respectively. It's like that woman in the aforementioned youtube video, she honestly thinks that the government simply prohibiting gender-based pay and promotion discrimination and providing a legal framework for civil legal recourse is itself a form of discrimination. The sheer indignation at the big, bad government stopping misogynists from persecuting her in the workplace would be hilarious if it wasn't so common, tragic, and fraught with negative consequences for women and other groups. Cowslips Warren posted:I'm trying to figure out what happened to me then. I've known several people with similar stories and, at least for these people I actually know, it seems to be simply a matter of finally achieving true sympathy. So many people act smug (not that I'm saying you specifically were smug in high school) and superior to those who are suffering because they just really don't get what it is like to be in that position unless they are forced into that position, they just can't do it in an abstract intellectual sense. I feel like it's kind of related to New Deal policies and Obamacare, as people rail against that kind of stuff until they actually experience what it's like to benefit from them and compare that state to how difficult it was before those programs were in place. This is why I'm glad that Obama got reelected despite disagreeing with him on many matters. I'm sure that once the rest of the Obamacare policies get gradually implemented over the next 4 years it will become politically untenable to remove it just like it is to end social security and Medicare (just look at the huge backlash against Paul Ryan's infamous budget).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Remember, women: if you use anything other than your own personal initiative to fight back against the enormous systemic injustices you face every day, then your achievement of equality won't count fully and you'll be less worthwhile as a human being. By the way, make sure not to use sexuality to your advantage, or act too aggressive, or be too dispassionate, or get emotional, or put your career ahead of your family. God, I can't believe some women think there's still discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Remember, women: if you use anything other than your own personal initiative to fight back against the enormous systemic injustices you face every day, then your achievement of equality won't count fully and you'll be less worthwhile as a human being. This is the pattern expected from all workers. Do you have a complaint against some corporation? Whatever you do, don't stoop to the immoral action of enlisting the government on your behalf. Instead, use the wages you gain from working at a used tire shop to lift yourself up until you're personally the equal of a Fortune 500 company, then face them with your own hand picked legal department. Or, perish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
Was really busy at work, so I wanted to go back and give you a response even though the thread has sort of moved on.VideoTapir posted:1. Every group mentioned wants things that encourage or require massive lifelong debt. If you asked them point blank if they want that, most would say no. But that isn't the point. For them to get things that they want, the young must suffer. But the fact that "the young suffering" isn't what they want is the point. The videos strongly imply (if not outright state, I can't recall now) that putting young people into debt is part of their goal; when in fact their actual goal is to teach (or do research) and practice medicine. But they also want to be paid for their services, which is hardly unreasonable considering how important both are to society. Anyways, the point is that the fault lies with a society that expects the cost of those services to by born by the young even though society as a whole benefits from them. It's not the fault of Universities or Hospitals, and the whole idea that they're somehow in it together with the banks to "create permanent economic relationships between you and loan organizations that put you on the bottom of society" is the part that comes of as conspiracyish. quote:2. That's what the videos are asserting is a lie. It's supposed to be good debt because it is supposed to serve a purpose, but for many people that purpose has been thwarted, and the consequences are far more severe than for credit card debt, and the debt almost always larger. Well the evidence doesn't back this up. Is it harder now for people getting out of college to find a full-time job than it was in 2004? Absolutely, in large part due to the recession. However, there's a pretty big discrepancy between those with and those without education when it comes to unemployment. No High School - 12.2% Just High School - 8.4% Associate Degree - 6.9% Bachelor's (or Higher) - 3.9% I just strongly disagree that it serves little, to no purpose, or that it's just as bad as credit card debt. Now, I think we both agree that we'd rather people got education without the debt; but as things stand right now, trying to argue that student loans are a lie and they're just as bad as credit cards and what you receive in return for that debt isn't going to serve a useful purpose in your financial future is not really a strong point to be arguing from. quote:3. This is probably the weakest area of the videos, as it is where it paints older people with the broadest brush. The strongest point in this area is that old people do tend to blame young people for their plight while they do in fact expect to be supported by those young people, though they'll never put it in those terms except maybe to their own children. OTOH, not all old people can afford their own health care, and not all old people do blame the young. But the point you're missing in bringing up tax rates is that young people don't pay as much in taxes because they make less money...and they make less money than their parents did, while their costs have increased, those subsidies only matter because of this, and subsidies to the poor (young) in general have decreased. This is the recurring theme through all three videos. I agree with a lot of what you say here, though I'm confused as to what exactly you mean by "blame the young for their plight". I've never really seen an argument of "I'm barely getting by on SS because of young people". I've seen "young people should work harder like I did (even though they actually do)", but never blame. In fact there's a lot of the former that shows up in this thread. Also, I thought I pointed out that they don't pay much in taxes because they don't make much. Young people are generally at the lowest point, earning-wise, of their lives (not counting retirement), and often qualify for a lot of deductions, hence low tax rates. But I disagree with the sentiment that the young people being discussed in the video make less than their parents. While the overall trend in the US is income stagnation, that's in large part due to jobs that fall to the lower 60%. The upper 40% have continued to see income growth, even if it hasn't been as significant for those closer to the middle as it once was. However, it's in this upper 40% that most people with college degrees find themselves. Though if you have data that says otherwise, I have no problem conceding this point. Anyways, the overall thing is that I agree with the end point the videos are trying to make about the state of education, employment, and healthcare; all three need a lot of work. But the arguments they use to get there just seem too easy to dismiss as inaccurate or misleading for them to sit well with me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
Sarion posted:But the fact that "the young suffering" isn't what they want is the point. The videos strongly imply (if not outright state, I can't recall now) that putting young people into debt is part of their goal; when in fact their actual goal is to teach (or do research) and practice medicine. But they also want to be paid for their services, which is hardly unreasonable considering how important both are to society. Anyways, the point is that the fault lies with a society that expects the cost of those services to by born by the young even though society as a whole benefits from them. It's not the fault of Universities or Hospitals, and the whole idea that they're somehow in it together with the banks to "create permanent economic relationships between you and loan organizations that put you on the bottom of society" is the part that comes of as conspiracyish. But the University system does greatly benefit from this system and has no incentive to change it. There's no pushback on tuition increases so schools can and do raise them with impunity. Even non-profit schools are stockpiling huge amounts of cash. It's not an active conspiracy per se but all of the elements of the system push all of the actors in the direction of sticking it to the students. Maybe the video personalized the system a bit too freely by attributing malignant motives to the school administrations but I don't think that changes the point, really. The end result is a bunch of people acting "in their best interests" and screwing a whole lot of other people in the process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Well the evidence doesn't back this up. Is it harder now for people getting out of college to find a full-time job than it was in 2004? Absolutely, in large part due to the recession. However, there's a pretty big discrepancy between those with and those without education when it comes to unemployment. What we have is basically a lot of companies really happy to not have to pay for on-the-job training (because they get interns), universities who, as 800peepee51doodoo, are perfectly happy to push tuition up, as well as enrollment, being driven by loan providers who have nothing to lose because at worst they get bailed out by the government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
You know, the ability to write and to analyze writing, abilities that will be developed in a good English program, is probably very important for jobs such as anything to do with advertisement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
point of return posted:You know, the ability to write and to analyze writing, abilities that will be developed in a good English program, is probably very important for jobs such as anything to do with advertisement. Just to make clear that this isn't railing on the humanities, I would say the same about QA positions in software companies, and quite a few in software development.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
I'm sure this has already made it's rounds here but this popped up on a golf forum I read. https://www.dropbox.com/s/cx4e27rdpdsjp8p/New%20Federal%20Golf%20Rules-2013.pdf That's the dropbox of the person that originally posted it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
mhachtx posted:I'm sure this has already made it's rounds here but this popped up on a golf forum I read. Because in life, just like in golf, everyone starts with the same score.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:But the University system does greatly benefit from this system and has no incentive to change it. There's no pushback on tuition increases so schools can and do raise them with impunity. Even non-profit schools are stockpiling huge amounts of cash. It's not an active conspiracy per se but all of the elements of the system push all of the actors in the direction of sticking it to the students. Maybe the video personalized the system a bit too freely by attributing malignant motives to the school administrations but I don't think that changes the point, really. The end result is a bunch of people acting "in their best interests" and screwing a whole lot of other people in the process. This is true, like I said, I think the system needs work. My issue was the "malignant motives" part that suggested schools/hospitals want people in massive debt. The school just wants its money. If the government was willing to cover it 100% and anyone could go to college debt free, the schools wouldn't pitch a fit cause they want their students burdened with debt. They'd be fine with it as long as they still got paid. Like you said, there's nothing that really stops them from continuing to demand more money (applies to both universities and hospitals really); and that is something that should be addressed. Absurd Alhazred posted:But how much of that employment in the upper two-three rungs is in jobs which either do not or used to not require any of those rungs before the job market was filled with a glut of additional people with that qualification? I doubt that there are that many new tenure track English or Philosophy positions, but you sure as hell have many more English or Philosophy PhD's working retail, weighed down with tenure-track-worth levels of debt. One of the main problems is a dynamic of pushing people deeper and deeper into hock just to stay in place. It's a result of "education" seen as a panacea to social issues where education-as-job-requirement is by definition a discriminatory measure. I don't know. I'm sure it's some, but you can also look at the statistics for median income based on education level, and the difference is around $26K for high school, and $43K for a bachelor's degree. So it seems unlikely that there's a huge number of people working retail, long term, with college degrees. But this is all assumptions, not direct statistics. Now, is there also possibly a separate problem where employers demand way more education than need be? Perhaps, though I don't know how to fix that; nor does it change my point that the student loan debt serves a purpose. Getting that degree has a direct impact on your long term employment and financial success. Whether or not it should isn't relevant to the point I was making; the degree serves a purpose, one which can result in greater financial gains down the road, making it "better" debt than credit cards. Also, Obama's student loan reform got rid of the middle men, the only entity giving out real student loans is (or will soon be, can't recall dates now) the government. Of course, private banks can still try to sell you normal loans, the money from which you can choose to spend on tuition. But real student loans now go through the government, who doesn't have that profit motive to push more people to enroll simply for the sake of selling more loans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
mhachtx posted:I'm sure this has already made it's rounds here but this popped up on a golf forum I read. The part I liked the best was the ending: quote:So, please remember; if you shot a round of golf under par, you didn't shoot it yourself. Someone else built that course, and someone else cut the grass so that you could play on it. Someone else built the clubs and the cart. It's written to suggest irony, when, in fact, it is correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
Sarion posted:I don't know. I'm sure it's some, but you can also look at the statistics for median income based on education level, and the difference is around $26K for high school, and $43K for a bachelor's degree. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
mhachtx posted:I'm sure this has already made it's rounds here but this popped up on a golf forum I read. Jesus, the more I read stuff like this the more I view people as petulant loving babies who have never had to do anything in life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:39
|
|
|
The golf thing is absolutely correct. Would you have been able to shoot par if the groundskeepers had just decided to gently caress off for two or three days? In fact, this would be a great idea for a silly-season PGA Tour event. Have 40 or so pros play a 2-day, 36-hole tourney on a crappy public golf course that nobody has maintained in any way for 72 hours. Call it the Galt Invitational.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 10:14
|
|
|
 I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Arabian Jesus posted:
Saying "happy holidays" is part of the insidious liberal WAR ON CHRISTMAS And not, you know, a quick and easy way to make people of all faiths or no faith feel included.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
mhachtx posted:I'm sure this has already made it's rounds here but this popped up on a golf forum I read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Arabian Jesus posted:
It means a lousy photoshop that, if it were real, would be illegal due to obstructing the driver's vision to the rear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
canada's a christian nation, donchano? its in da constitution, ya hoser
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It means a lousy photoshop that, if it were real, would be illegal due to obstructing the driver's vision to the rear. Is that the way it is in Canada? I know in the states you can paint the rear black as long as you have both side mirrors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 19:26
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Is that the way it is in Canada? I know in the states you can paint the rear black as long as you have both side mirrors. Canada doesn't have any large trucks don'cha know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
Speaking of Canada, my grandpa just sent me this: "Top Ten - Only in America - By a Canadian 1) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund-raising event. 2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black. 3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for their tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes. 4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash. 5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens. 6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists." 7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote. 8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. Oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike). 9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money. 10) Only in America could the most productive people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all." He usually doesn't act loony. #2 is just the worst. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
Breadallelogram posted:Speaking of Canada, my grandpa just sent me this: quote:4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the quote:5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally quote:6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the  quote:7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to quote:8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate quote:9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars quote:10) Only in America could the most productive people who pay 86%
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Breadallelogram posted:2) Only in America could people claim that the government still There are as many as two black people in charge sheesh just shut up and put the race card away!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:edit: What's the age range on that? All ages, I'm pretty sure. But my point was never about how much you'll be making the day you graduate; rather just showing that between job stability and average pay, a degree does provide financial benefits and those benefits usually outweigh the cost of obtaining that degree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Any company can price gouge as long as at least one other company is making more money. And not just another company, but companies in totally different markets. It would be completely ok for food and energy prices to skyrocket to Nike-level markups!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
Sarion posted:And not just another company, but companies in totally different markets. It would be completely ok for food and energy prices to skyrocket to Nike-level markups! It is our right as citizens to complain about taxes, but it is NOT okay to complain about gas prices (unless it is being blamed on Obama).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
If that was written by a Canadian you can bone me with a hot curling iron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Even in my backwoods hometown, this is the only individual who still considers the Tea Party A Thing. I think I understand what kind of sense this makes to her, but it's breaking my brain to be able to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
My neighbor, who drives a Ron Paulmobile (covered in bumper stickers and decals) and Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate, posted this lovely thing on Facebook. It's Bing Crosby, singing "Dixie." Just because it's a nice song, that's all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7eDnzEjwOU
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 03:31
|
|