|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:I am not reading that book. gently caress, it's worse than white dudes in African American Studies courses Footnote 3, first essay posted:This is obviously a vast generalization, and I do not have the space to Hey! Look over there! It's a bear! may not actually be a bear, or even bear shaped, but it's over there. trust me
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Hey! Look over there! It's a bear! I'm confused, is Marxism bad now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:I'm confused, is Marxism bad now? Uh, yes? That is the literal definition of the word. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:I'm confused, is Marxism bad now? Cultural Marxism Explained in 7 Minutes This is an excellent short video explaining the source and nature of Cultural Marxist movements like political correctness, modern feminism, pansexualism, multiculturalism, "whiteness studies," etc. For an in-depth critique of the thinkers whose writings shaped Cultural Marxism, see Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left by the eminent British philosopher Roger Scruton. Scruton brilliantly exposes the pretensions, obscurities, and inanities of Sartre, Foucault, Galbraith, Marcuse, Lukacs, Habermas, Adorno, Rawls, Dworkin and others of their ilk. The book is not just a philosophical tract but a work in critical political economy and contains one of the most penetrating discussions of the Marxist labor theory of value that I have ever read. [This video is no longer available because the uploader has closed their YouTube account.] paragon1 posted:We really do have the very best in word filter technology. I tried a search for both SJW and actual Robocop and it gave me nothing good. Just article comments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Huh. That's a really good way to put it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
I've been thinking on how libertarians harp on how evil hairdresser licensing is. They might be right, but that's irrelevant. They're going on about how there's so many people - especially the most vulnerable, women and people of color - who could make a good living cutting hair, but can't because of all the regulatory hurdles. But if those regulations didn't exist and they still couldn't do it for whatever reason (no demand, competition, cutting someone's ear off), then... Oh well? We got rid of the regulations, anything more is your fault? While they paint it as this One Great Step To Economic Prosperity. It seems disingenuous. If someone can't make a living because of regulations, that's Bad; if they can't make the same living because of competition, that's Good. So by harping on this, they're pulling at heartstrings while avoiding all the other reasons someone might not be able to thrive. It's easy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Well somebody that can't make a living as a hairdresser must just be a bad hairdresser or too lazy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Cultural Marxism I think you'll find that this is the best explanation of Cultural Marxism you are going to find.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
Golbez posted:I've been thinking on how libertarians harp on how evil hairdresser licensing is. They might be right, but that's irrelevant. They're going on about how there's so many people - especially the most vulnerable, women and people of color - who could make a good living cutting hair, but can't because of all the regulatory hurdles. I am always amused, definitely not in a ha-ha way, by situations where the government can effectively out-compete private industry due to its lack of overhead and non-profit motive. Health care is the perfect example. Libertards/teabaggers/randroids like to gloss over the fact that lobbyists in the private health-care industry took single-payer government health care off of the negotiations immediately when they were working on the ACA because they knew that they would not compete... yet somehow private markets are always more efficient? The US could literally have a health-care system where the government was freely competing with private insurers and they would object on principle even if it was just due to the government having a huge risk pool and being able to lower costs due to that. I was also just thinking about this all-in-one printer I bought a short while ago. I really like it and it wasn't terribly expensive, but the ink costs way too much. This, of course, is due to the pricing model of printer manufacturers, but when some outside company makes the same ink at a fraction of the cost, they try to sue it away. Capitalists/market fetishists are all about "healthy" competition until someone beats them at their own game. It's almost like they are entirely motivated by a childish sense of greed and entitlement and use an ideology to try mask their own rapaciousness under some kind of noble cause.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
The really cool meme is that "it's just not fair that private insurers can't compete, but it's only because they can't steal money and use violence, obvs." Like I give a poo poo about being fair to those parasites. Like "fair market competition to see who wins" is what matters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I think you'll find that this is the best explanation of Cultural Marxism you are going to find. We are now friends
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Golbez posted:I've been thinking on how libertarians harp on how evil hairdresser licensing is. They might be right, but that's irrelevant. They're going on about how there's so many people - especially the most vulnerable, women and people of color - who could make a good living cutting hair, but can't because of all the regulatory hurdles. (I'm not a libertarian but) maybe if you can't hack hair for living you should do something else for a living? You think the government should support Sweeney Todd and salons without clients as the path to economic prosperity? I really don't see how this is disingenuous. Of course the real answer is that a lot of people who only take a semester of economics seem to always forget the second half of the second welfare theorem and are even less likely to have a real understanding of their general inapplicability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
CyclicalAberration posted:(I'm not a libertarian but) maybe if you can't hack hair for living you should do something else for a living? You think the government should support Sweeney Todd and salons without clients as the path to economic prosperity? I really don't see how this is disingenuous. Of course the real answer is that a lot of people who only take a semester of economics seem to always forget the second half of the second welfare theorem and are even less likely to have a real understanding of their general inapplicability. They talk about how regulations keep women down because they can't cut hair. However, they ignore the fact that removing the regulations doesn't actually improve their lives, it removes a single barrier to entry. In the meantime, they pretend the many, many other barriers to entry - like cost, competition, skill, etc. - don't exist. In other words, they don't care about improving lives, they care about the narrowest ideological issues. If those regulations didn't exist and they still weren't able to make it, would libertarians make other reform recommendations? Or would they say "get a different job," and why isn't that a valid option for them while regulations still exist? I may not be making sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Golbez posted:They talk about how regulations keep women down because they can't cut hair. However, they ignore the fact that removing the regulations doesn't actually improve their lives, it removes a single barrier to entry. In the meantime, they pretend the many, many other barriers to entry - like cost, competition, skill, etc. - don't exist. In other words, they don't care about improving lives, they care about the narrowest ideological issues. No you are, and you're pretty accurate. It's a thinly veiled"no gunmen!" argument. My phone changed gubment to gunmen and it still works
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Rick Scott did that five years ago. He tried to deregulate the beauty industry, until everyone who knew anything about it talked him out of it. It was pretty hilarious seeing the people he was trying to help beg him to stop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with regulating barbers and hairdressers and plenty of good reasons for doing so, but at least in the USA it is heavily abused and rife with rent-seeking and creating artificially high barriers to entry. This typically happens at the state, county and municipal level. Existing businesses can slowly lobby toadd more and more 'necessary' certifications that they can easily pay because they have a revenue stream while incrementally raising the barriers to entry into the marketplace. I'm a democratic socialist most of the time, but every time I have to work with a county or municipal agency I start getting libertarian sympathies. The American system of local governance in every state I've practiced law in has been terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
DEKH posted:There's nothing wrong with regulating barbers and hairdressers and plenty of good reasons for doing so, but at least in the USA it is heavily abused and rife with rent-seeking and creating artificially high barriers to entry. This typically happens at the state, county and municipal level. Existing businesses can slowly lobby toadd more and more 'necessary' certifications that they can easily pay because they have a revenue stream while incrementally raising the barriers to entry into the marketplace. I'm a democratic socialist most of the time, but every time I have to work with a county or municipal agency I start getting libertarian sympathies. The American system of local governance in every state I've practiced law in has been terrible. So you're democratic socialist except when it comes to the actual administration of things. You might want to get involved to learn why it could be silly to abstract that poo poo when looking at levels that you don't interact with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
DEKH posted:There's nothing wrong with regulating barbers and hairdressers and plenty of good reasons for doing so, but at least in the USA it is heavily abused and rife with rent-seeking and creating artificially high barriers to entry. This typically happens at the state, county and municipal level. Existing businesses can slowly lobby toadd more and more 'necessary' certifications that they can easily pay because they have a revenue stream while incrementally raising the barriers to entry into the marketplace. I'm a democratic socialist most of the time, but every time I have to work with a county or municipal agency I start getting libertarian sympathies. The American system of local governance in every state I've practiced law in has been terrible. Like the only reason to have hairdressers require a liscense is rent seeking in order to limit competition. I mean you can think that is a good reason to drive up prices to profit hairdressers, but don't pretend there is some altruistic goal there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Like the only reason to have hairdressers require a liscense is rent seeking in order to limit competition. As for local administrations being lovely and petty, this is why I am always incredibly skeptical of claims that just because something is local or smaller or otherwise nearer to the purported persons being served, it is necessarily better... this is often treated as a kind of axiom, and I don't think it's necessarily so. It isn't necessarily not so either, but it isn't an axiomatic good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Hairdressers and barbers can actually inadvertently spread disease and parasites. It's why every barber has that big glass jar of greenish gunk that he puts combs and scissors in. If memory serves a lot of the training is safety; some of the chemicals beauticians use are flammable and possibly toxic. There is actually a fair amount of knowledge necessary to do that job safely so some certification and licensing is reasonable. Then if you get into plucking and waxing you can actually injure somebody if you do it wrong. Hair dye also comes to mind. poo poo can be nasty if it gets ingested or in somebody's eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Hairdressers and barbers can actually inadvertently spread disease and parasites. It's why every barber has that big glass jar of greenish gunk that he puts combs and scissors in. If memory serves a lot of the training is safety; some of the chemicals beauticians use are flammable and possibly toxic. There is actually a fair amount of knowledge necessary to do that job safely so some certification and licensing is reasonable. All that and they still only get paid $10 an hour at Supercuts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Just think, if we got rid of all those regulations... they could still get paid $10 an hour (if that). And be on the hook for injuring people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Just think, if we got rid of all those regulations... they could still get paid $10 an hour (if that). And be on the hook for injuring people. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Supercuts tried to reclassify their hairdressers as "independent contractors".
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I think you'll find that this is the best explanation of Cultural Marxism you are going to find. I love how hbomberguy spends the entire time barely restraining laughter, when he's not failing to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Hairdressers and barbers can actually inadvertently spread disease and parasites. It's why every barber has that big glass jar of greenish gunk that he puts combs and scissors in. If memory serves a lot of the training is safety; some of the chemicals beauticians use are flammable and possibly toxic. There is actually a fair amount of knowledge necessary to do that job safely so some certification and licensing is reasonable. The idea that you need a certification for basic cleanliness training is pretty dubious. Your pizza chef could get e-coli in your food by not washing his hands but he or she doesn't need a license to make a pizza.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The idea that you need a certification for basic cleanliness training is pretty dubious. Uh actually they do, they need a basic "foodsafe" training. It's not hard and it's not well enforced, but it's something. A lot of people actually do need training on what most people would consider very basic poo poo like "don't use the same cutting board you cut the raw meat on to then chop a salad you're about to serve" or "maybe sometimes actually wash your hands/workspace"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Issues like that are covered by food safety inspectors. They ensure basic safety is being maintained without putting a limit on the number of chefs that can be employed. The business itself is responsible for ensuring it's cooks don't do stupid poo poo and it is subject to fines/lawsuits of it doesn't. If you are concerned about cleanliness that is the method that should be used. Licenses for individual cooks makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Issues like that are covered by food safety inspectors. They ensure basic safety is being maintained without putting a limit on the number of chefs that can be employed. Are you arguing for hair dresser inspectors, then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The idea that you need a certification for basic cleanliness training is pretty dubious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Are you arguing for hair dresser inspectors, then? If the goal is to ensure safety that would better achieve the aims at a lower societal cost. Like I said, the licenses are crafted to limit labor supply, not ensure safety. I personally think the low risk of injury could be handled by training by the employer with failure to take reasonable steps resulting in the risk of a lawsuit. But inspectors would be preferable to the current state and I could accept that as an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
"The employer" presupposes an employer. What about the brave small businessperson just trying to open their own shop, eh? You're moving the target!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Nessus posted:"The employer" presupposes an employer. What about the brave small businessperson just trying to open their own shop, eh? You're moving the target! Not really, you'd be your own employer and be responsible for it. Failure to do so would make you liable. I mean this is exactly the sort of thing tort law was built for. Edit: but please go ahead and let me know if I'm wrong about the spread of disease being a a real significant problem that an entire apparatus of government needs to be created and maintained to stop it. If it's a significant problem (or was before licensing) both in severity and number of incidents and licenses have cut down on it significantly I will concede the point that government involvement is necessary. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jul 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Would there be licenses for the hair dresser inspectors too, or will the market decide who should be an inspector?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
White Coke posted:Would there be licenses for the hair dresser inspectors too, or will the market decide who should be an inspector? I'd say they'd be government employees? Just like health inspectors? Did i suggest otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Unless your restaurant is notoriously bad, you won't see health inspectors but once a year and you almost always have early warning. A ton of the violations are under the condition that if you can fix it while they are there, it won't be marked. It isn't a great system, it is that foodborne illnesses are actually fairly uncommon. (Barring chicken: chicken is loving disgusting and will be until it kills some kids like beef + shiga toxin producing e. coli.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Unless your restaurant is notoriously bad, you won't see health inspectors but once a year and you almost always have early warning. A ton of the violations are under the condition that if you can fix it while they are there, it won't be marked. It isn't a great system, it is that foodborne illnesses are actually fairly uncommon. (Barring chicken: chicken is loving disgusting and will be until it kills some kids like beef + shiga toxin producing e. coli.) At least in my state, inspections are unannounced unless they've already flagged you and are running to see that you've fixed the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean this is exactly the sort of thing tort law was built for. Tort is pretty bad for lots of purposes. I don't know about the health and safety origins of hairdresser regulations, but I think it's worth considering that, for instance, a hairdresser might be exposing your hair to caustic chemicals, and if they mess up badly, there could be an enormous amount of lost income (because appearance matters in society) that they don't necessarily have any means of compensating you for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:At least in my state, inspections are unannounced unless they've already flagged you and are running to see that you've fixed the issue. They are "unannounced" but you can tell when they are coming. They will do an entire entertainment district at a time for example, so you have time to snake a drain or change a bucket or hide some nasty poo poo. People are creatures of habit, so you can catch on to things like them coming a certain week every year, or at exactly 8 months. They still aren't random rear end inspections unless you have seriously pissed off the health department.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Issues like that are covered by food safety inspectors. They ensure basic safety is being maintained without putting a limit on the number of chefs that can be employed. States are also mandating training in that sort of thing for at least a few people there. Don't know how it works elsewhere but here in the Pennsylvania there's this ServSafe thing that is required. Not everybody must have it but a lot of places have framed certificates where customers can see them. I think it's something like managers and head chefs need to have it and then keep everybody else from doing dumb things. Plus like you said they also get inspected from time to time. Aside from that a restaurant that makes somebody extremely I'll due to negligence is probably going to get sued into oblivion. They do not want that to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 05:14
|
|