|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Bezos can be a piece of poo poo, and Wpo can be a good place to work. A difficult thought to have I know. Your data doesn't even address what people are talking about. The claim is "Bezos seems to be doing stuff that will decrease conditions for WaPo workers" and you gave stats showing workers are currently happy. How do you not understand this? This is a perfect example of why data can actually be worse than nothing in the hands of someone who doesn't understand how to properly interpret or apply it to explaining a particular situation.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:You didn't? Bezos has turned WaPo from financial ruin to profitable, and that is an undeniably good thing for journalism. cutting benefits does not negate this. It doesn't mean it isn't bad either. I know nuance is really hard for you guys, but you gotta try.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Your data doesn't even address what people are talking about. The claim is "Bezos seems to be doing stuff that will decrease conditions for WaPo workers" and you gave stats showing workers are currently happy. Condiv's argument was that WaPo, much like amazon warehouses, was a lovely place to work. I was refuting that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:
"Good" and "Bad" are reductive; he's doing more than one thing. It's been profitable in the past year which is pretty radical given the industry. I'm not sure how he's managed that, maybe it's a matter of Trump coverage and not Bezos' involvement. That might be good by itself. Cutting worker protections however is bad even if he isn't doing it as much as other places, though. The argument is akin to fast food workers having their wages cut rather than being replaced by automation. If good relative to the industry, it's still objectively a loss for workers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Bezos has turned WaPo from financial ruin to profitable, and that is an undeniably good thing for journalism. cutting benefits does not negate this. It doesn't mean it isn't bad either. I know nuance is really hard for you guys, but you gotta try. So is cutting benefits bad? If so, is it okay if we say "Wow, dude did a bad thing?" Or are you going to loving freak out because  INTERNET LEFTISTS are criticizing the powerful?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Bezos has turned WaPo from financial ruin to profitable, and that is an undeniably good thing for journalism. cutting benefits does not negate this. It doesn't mean it isn't bad either. I know nuance is really hard for you guys, but you gotta try. Cutting benefits is bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Condiv's argument was that WaPo, much like amazon warehouses, was a lovely place to work. I was refuting that. He actually never said that by the way, he said that Amazon is a terrible place to work and that Bezos was making WaPo more like that. tbqh he's right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Condiv's argument was that WaPo, much like amazon warehouses, was a lovely place to work. I was refuting that. where? where did i say that hy loam? i never even implied that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
man, look at them come out of the woodwork. Is there a signal or something, or do they use pheromones? Let's try this. Are the benefits offered by Wapo, even after the supposed cuts, better or worse than what you personally have at your job? And by the way, I never said cutting benefits was good, but i don't necessarily think it is as bad as you do. My ideological purity. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
So are you gonna own up to anything other than playing this lameass "HEH, GOTCHA" poo poo or
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:While I don't want to defend Bezos for his other businesses, the idea that WaPo is anything bus massively successful and supportive of their journalists, especially after this year is here's you claiming wapo is poo poo to work at. where did i make any claim about the status of working at wapo? what i've been arguing this whole time is that bezos' planned compensation slashes will make things worse at wapo
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Condiv posted:where did i make any claim about the status of working at wapo? Condiv posted:bezos' planned compensation slashes will make things worse at wapo
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:And by the way, I never said cutting benefits was good, but i don't necessarily think it is as bad as you do. Man, when you get to the point where you're saying "cutting benefits for workers isn't thaaaaaat bad" I think you need to rethink your life. Are you in management? Finance? Something totally dehumanizing like that? God forbid, the healthy insurance industry?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:here's you claiming wapo is poo poo to work at. where did i make any claim about the status of working at wapo? what i've been arguing this whole time is that bezos' planned compensation slashes will make things worse at wapo Uhh condiv you might want to reread that
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:man, look at them come out of the woodwork. Is there a signal or something, or do they use pheromones? ah crab bucket mentality
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Man, when you get to the point where you're saying "cutting benefits for workers isn't thaaaaaat bad" I think you need to rethink your life. I'm just not as ideologically pure as you I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
yeah, that doesn't claim that wapo is poo poo right now like you've been claiming try again hy loam
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
How is that quote even remotely controversial?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:man, look at them come out of the woodwork. Is there a signal or something, or do they use pheromones? This is a lot of triple-downing to avoid admitting that you thought condiv was referring to wapo and not amazon
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:man, look at them come out of the woodwork. Is there a signal or something, or do they use pheromones? Please be aware of the fact that people are attacking your arguments not because they are "internet leftists", but because your arguments are bad, and that you're a terrible person. Stop blaming random groups for your own social failings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Uhh condiv you might want to reread that i thought he was being sarcastic, but whatever. still doesn't back his claims that i was saying wapo is a hellzone right now
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I'm just not as ideologically pure as you I guess. Christ, it's not a contest for purity, man, it's empathy for the affected people. If this was happening at your job, would you be all smiles going "No, y'all, it's fine, losing benefits isn't that bad!!!!" or would you be loving pissed off?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I'm just not as ideologically pure as you I guess. next time you're like "no guys i really am progressive" remember the time you claimed a billionaire tech mogul cutting journalist's salaries is a good thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I'm just not as equipped with a functioning sense of empathy/decency as you I guess. loving lol I was catching up on the cheetolord thread and saw this now too Heck Yes! Loam! posted:internet leftists are indistinguishable from internet nazis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
I mean, I'll say it WaPo employees are treated like cattle and the management/owners deserve the gulag
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Maybe we should take this to the thunderdome before it gets too out of ha...Nosfereefer posted:Please be aware of the fact that people are attacking your arguments not because they are "internet leftists", but because your arguments are bad, and that you're a terrible person. Stop blaming random groups for your own social failings. Nice.  WampaLord posted:Christ, it's not a contest for purity, man, it's empathy for the affected people. If this was happening at your job, would you be all smiles going "No, y'all, it's fine, losing benefits isn't that bad!!!!" or would you be loving pissed off? Being pissed off about losing benefits is definitely something that would happen. I wouldn't quit my very good job because of a 1-4% cut to future pay raises however. There are so many more ripe targets for getting pissed off about labor, but for some reason you guys chose to attack the washington loving post because you're dumb internet lefits who care more about attacking perceived enemies than you are objective truth. I'm sure all of you would quit your job out of ideological purity if your benefits were ever cut.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Let's try this. Are the benefits offered by Wapo, even after the supposed cuts, better or worse than what you personally have at your job? What does the benefits of other jobs have to do with Bezos slashing the WaPo benefits? What kind of stupid argument is that, if someone has better benefits than others it's good that their benefits are cut? Just how stupid are you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
interesting how condiv criticizes WaPo but not foxconn
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:employees are treated like cattle and management/owners deserve the gulag why discriminate
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Maybe we should take this to the thunderdome before it gets too out of ha... so we shouldn't care about journalists getting screwed over cause there are people getting screwed over worse elsewhere? how about we care about all the workers getting screwed over and fight for better labor protections instead of pulling crab bucket poo poo and saying "well wapo journalists have it p well so they can stand a cut or two in benefits so bezos can make an extra buck"? you ever heard of workers' solidarity?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so we shouldn't care about journalists getting screwed over cause there are people getting screwed over worse elsewhere? how about we care about all the workers getting screwed over and fight for better labor protections instead of pulling crab bucket poo poo and saying "well wapo journalists have it p well so they can stand a cut or two in benefits so bezos can make an extra buck"? you ever heard of workers' solidarity? p.s. this is why unions are a good thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Let's try this. Are the benefits offered by Wapo, even after the supposed cuts, better or worse than what you personally have at your job? Worse
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Any truth to the rumors that Bezos took $600 Million from the intelligence agencies while head of WaPo and that this might have some distinct conflict of interest issues?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Maybe we should take this to the thunderdome before it gets too out of ha... I think you should step back and review the discussion, because you are clearly not getting it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:What does the benefits of other jobs have to do with Bezos slashing the WaPo benefits? What kind of stupid argument is that, if someone has better benefits than others it's good that their benefits are cut? Lets try this another way. Are the benefits offered by WaPo, even after the cuts, better than average? Does him cutting the existing benefits make him worse than people that do not offer those benefits at all?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:
That's not relevant; what's worse, it's divisive. People are jumping on your argument because it's lobster-potting; why do I care if a fellow worker is doing relatively better, if he or she is doing objectively worse? There's always somebody doing worse. "Why do they want $15 an hour? They should be happy to get minimum wage! Some people don't even get that!" Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Lets try this another way. Are the benefits offered by WaPo, even after the cuts, better than average? Does him cutting the existing benefits make him worse than people that do not offer those benefits at all? Again, not relevant. Relative arguments are divisive and immaterial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
whataboutism is a powerful force. i dont think we can overcome it gentlemen
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Democrats 2020: Other people have it worse, and so can we!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
My point is that you guys chose a strange target, and WaPo, while cutting benefits is bad, is still very good to their employees. I think your efforts of criticism, while valid, are sort of tone deaf when it comes to the reality of the labor market. Most people do not have even the benefits that WaPo offers, and we should be working to get to that point instead of making GBS threads on an employer that currently is doing better than 75% of the labor market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Lets try this another way. Are the benefits offered by WaPo, even after the cuts, better than average? Does him cutting the existing benefits make him worse than people that do not offer those benefits at all? What are you even trying to say here? That benefit cuts are good because things could be worse? That the fact that somebody else could have done the same thing absolves him in any way?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:00
|
|