|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I think a company where most of the money that goes to the people that works there and only a small percentage goes to the company is really cool The only reason you think Uber works like this is because you don't understand the difference between revenue and profit
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
It would be interesting to see owl's solution to the ultimatum game that doesn't involve rejecting any offers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 09:21
|
|
|
It's disheartening that a company can recycle the same centuries-old exploitative schemes like piecework pay with no guaranteed wage and requirements that workers provide and maintain the capital equipment (by borrowing and paying interest to their employer if necessary), but if they have a slick UI and use all the hip buzzwords like 'innovation' and 'disruption' technofetishist libs will think it's some new harbinger of progress. The more things change... VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It would be interesting to see owl's solution to the ultimatum game that doesn't involve rejecting any offers. There are four main difference between the Ultimatum Game and this situation that come to mind: 1. Democratic politicians don't necessarily know why people didn't "take the deal" (that is, vote). Some people may have chosen to "reject the deal" because they weren't left enough, while others may have chosen to reject it because they're pro-choice or whatever. 2. Democratic politicians would quite literally rather lose in many cases than give the deal many voters want. 3. Individual Democrat politicians only care about whether enough people "take the deal" in their constituencies, and most have constituencies where the race isn't particularly close. So individuals "rejecting the deal" only matter to them if there are enough of them for them to potentially lose their specific race. 4. Individuals have options other than accepting/rejecting the deal for influencing the person offering the deal (equivalent to activism, etc in the real world). Owlofcreamcheese posted:Accelerationism is very dumb and you should vote for democrats in every election that they are even one centimeter better than the republicans. If you want them to be more than 1 centimeter there are primaries to vote in, there are candidates you can support or donate to, there are organizations you can work at, but when you go to vote if you ever think "maybe I should vote for the worse guy and hurt people to prove a point" it doesn't prove any point to anyone except that you are now a republican voter. I have a question related to this. Your argument in favor of lesser evil voting seems to be related to minimizing the chance of Republicans winning, but one could argue (and people have, many times) that giving support for another candidate in the primary (and thus criticizing/attacking the other candidate(s)) could have a negative impact on the candidate who goes on to win the primary (with this argument usually popping up in primaries where one candidate is very likely to win). Why do you draw the line in terms "optimizing the chance of Democrats winning" at voting in the general but are okay with action that could harm their chances in the primary? For the record, I think there's a good answer to this question (that is basically what I believe myself), but I'm curious to hear yours. My reason for advocating voting Democratic in the general election isn't because it maximizes the chance of the Democrat winning, but rather because there's no evidence not voting has any positive impact. If I felt like not voting had the potential to move the party to the left, that's the choice I would make instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:1. Democratic politicians don't necessarily know why people didn't "take the deal" (that is, vote). Some people may have chosen to "reject the deal" because they weren't left enough, while others may have chosen to reject it because they're pro-choice or whatever. that's why you do vote, just for good candidates instead of manchins
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:there's no evidence not voting has any positive impact. If I felt like not voting had the potential to move the party to the left, that's the choice I would make instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:4. Individuals have options other than accepting/rejecting the deal for influencing the person offering the deal (equivalent to activism, etc in the real world). This is arguable IMO. It seems like the very best you can expect from activism is to get politicians to make commitment-free statements that hold about as much clout as the duration of their election campaign. Supporting alternatives in primaries is a good start, but even there the degree of control over a parties' primary means that "skew the system in our favor" usually beats out "pivot to win the people that voted for this guy last time".
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's stupid to just call everything that doesn't agree with you "evil" then pack up your brain and stop thinking. Some policies are evil, some are wrong. Just declaring it a war of good and evil and that everyone is evil is just a short cut to not thinking. Capitalism is evil though, and a party that supports it is also evil
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Sure, I didn't bring up uber, someone brought it up at me. People can keep trying to convince me the gig economy is bad and I can keep copying and posting that I think the gig economy is bad. I think a company where most of the money that goes to the people that works there and only a small percentage goes to the company is really cool, but the reality of 2018 america make it actually very bad. The ability to now run companies with such thin overhead will probably do some cool things in countries that are better than the US or hopefully in a future US that is better than it is now. If you are looking for a taxi job in the next ten years don't go with uber unless you live in one of those cities where taxi drivers were already mistreated so extremely that even uber is better. You've been jacking off to dumb tech bullshit for it's own sake for fifteen years, no shock you love the gig economy where a company can be absolutely ludicrously evil and get away with it. You probably think it's great that Uber will buy you a car and automatically deduct payments from your check at an insane interest rate, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:
If you step on a flower it might displace a bee that goes on to have it'd decedents murder a baby a thousand miles away. If you can somehow know that then don't step on that flower. Otherwise you gotta judge the reasonable consequences of all your actions and if you feel like the likely outcome of what you are doing is more aid to republicans than to the causes you want then change your tactics. If you are running a campaign that can win, go for it, if all it will do is lose horribly and win for the republicans work towards your goals in more effective ways, if you legitimately don't know until you try then do what you can to minimize harm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
I have to say I'm not convinced by the political equivalent of human wave tactics. "It may at some point be necessary to change strategy but not if it means stopping this really terrible one." OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you step on a flower it might displace a bee that goes on to have it'd decedents murder a baby a thousand miles away. If you can somehow know that then don't step on that flower. Otherwise you gotta judge the reasonable consequences of all your actions and if you feel like the likely outcome of what you are doing is more aid to republicans than to the causes you want then change your tactics. If you are running a campaign that can win, go for it, if all it will do is lose horribly and win for the republicans work towards your goals in more effective ways, if you legitimately don't know until you try then do what you can to minimize harm. I think the best way to minimize harm is not voting for people whose policies do not serve to enrich the wealthy while loving the poor in the rear end
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:I think the best way to minimize harm is not voting for people whose policies do not serve to enrich the wealthy while loving the poor in the rear end And that is why you help republicans win?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:what do people even think "technocrat" is at this point? some weird "cell phones are bad and this has the word techno in it so it's bad"? Are people in this thread not technocrats? Owlofcreamcheese is, as ever, unable to understand anything bad about words that refer to science or technology in any way
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And that is why you help republicans win? I believe that voting for Democrats would also do harm, just much more slowly, insidiously, and in a way people are conditioned to accept It is possible for me to not like Democrats or republicans and not want either one to win, this isn't a hard concept The Democrats don't represent my interests. As such, I won't vote for them until they do. This is how voting works as a concept. I'm glad I could explain this to you in between your hourly jack off sessions to wired
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
But dickeye think of all the good Obama did for you in those eight years, like the health care reform that left you applying for Medicaid because you still couldn't afford health care and we're one emergency away from bankruptcy And what about Hillary and her fight to not raise minimum wage to a livable level so you're working sixty hours a week to get by and none of it is over time And they really do love the dreamers, honest gently caress them, and gently caress you and your limp dick decorum bullshit
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:And what about Hillary and her fight to not raise minimum wage to a livable level so you're working sixty hours a week to get by and none of it is over time Hilary wanted to raise the national minimum wage to 165% what it is now, Sanders wanted to raise it to 206%, better vote republican so they can lower it to 0% of what it is now. Lowering it is exactly the same as raising it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Hilary wanted to raise the national minimum wage to 165% what it is now, Sanders wanted to raise it to 206%, better vote republican so they can lower it to 0% of what it is now. Lowering it is exactly the same as raising it. Her response to fight for didteen was "how about twelve" which is in fact not a livable wage, and as such not a platform I support. Also I like that because I said they're both bad, I voted Republican (I didn't) Really you should stop with the "oh you don't like the Dems? Guess you voted Republican" poo poo, it's gross as hell even for your idiot brain BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Imagine if she had had the stones to actually support a livable wage, she might have gotten some votes, better blame people for not eating a big pile of poo poo instead of the politician who offered it to them
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
There is an argument to be made that expending political capital on insufficient measures is not really much better than not spending it on doing nothing. If you're dealing with someone who will raise the minimum wage to an insufficient amount and then turn around and use the fact they did that (with your support) to suppress further efforts to raise it, "all or nothing" is not really a bizarre position. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
The democrat leadership has beem totally captured by moneyed interests, and by the class interests of well off highly educated people. There is no future trajectory for improving the party, so that it works for the common man, that doesn't involve removing these people from power. And there's no way to do that without basically destroying the dems. So long as marginal lesser-evil victories come in, the corporate money keeps coming in, and tge lanyards stay where they are. Dems leadership needs to get utterly wiped out. After that happens, corporate money will stop trickling in, and centrists lanyards can get kicked out. So unless the dem guy you're voting for is a berniecrat: do not vote for them, ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
I used to think that you had to vote lesser evil, but the loss of Hillary Clinton to literally Donald Trump has destroyed that belief. Centrism can't hold back fascism. The only route now is to burn the dems down, and replace them with a real party. Which means that, in the mean time, opposition to right wing governments has to come from the streets, through grassroots direct action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There is an argument to be made that expending political capital on insufficient measures is not really much better than not spending it on doing nothing. Its not even about that, it's as simple as 12 dollars is not enough. I live in upstate NY, minimum is 10 and change here. I work sixty hours a week to get by. If it went to twelve an hour, I would work maaaaybe five hours a week less by the time you took out taxes (which are wild as hell here and I'm cool with it because it pays for poo poo that makes living possible, like snow plows in winter!) By contrast, fifteen an hour would mean I could work forty hours a week, make as much as I am now, and not be doing 14 hour days (at two jobs, lest you think I get the blessed gift of overtime) three days a week to do it Don't offer me poo poo that doesn't improve my life in a measurable way and tell me you're doing Mr a favor, especially when the better option is also up for grabs
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
There is an argument to be made that nobody knows what political capital is, except that it's voodoo witch powder that prevents centrists from doing anything
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese has kind of given away the game at this point. A party captured by the new economy, capitalism 2.0 school of abuse and exploitation is his preferred form of government. We should just all ignore the real human suffering caused by it, gloss over how badly it's losing to a growing white nationalist movement, embrace our new place as the working homeless that will die malnutrition, poisoned water, climate change, and easily treatable diseases, and will a thousand years of decorum into existence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Its not even about that, it's as simple as 12 dollars is not enough. I live in upstate NY, minimum is 10 and change here. I work sixty hours a week to get by. If it went to twelve an hour, I would work maaaaybe five hours a week less by the time you took out taxes (which are wild as hell here and I'm cool with it because it pays for poo poo that makes living possible, like snow plows in winter!) So you are saying that 12 is bad but 15 is good so democrats are bad but ignoring that NY already signed it's 15 dollar an hour law that was written, voted by and signed by democrats? It's 15 by the end of this year if you are at a company with more than 11 employees and 15 an hour by the end of the year next year if you have less than 11 employees. That is a law that exists that democrats pushed, won and signed. Like were you just so angry at democrats you didn't even bother to support the thing you wanted them to support for you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So you are saying that 12 is bad but 15 is good so democrats are bad but ignoring that NY already signed it's 15 dollar an hour law that was written, voted by and signed by democrats? I want everyone to have it, not just me
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
"I think it's Bullshit that Hillary didn't argue for a federal minimum wage of fifteen dollars an hour" "Ah but new York is getting it in a year and a half checkmate leftist you can't be mad that the federal minimum wage isn't fifteen because the state will be, eventually" You're a fuckin psychopath if you think everyone is focused only on themselves
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:I want everyone to have it, not just me So you want the real purchasing power of minimum wage to be less for people in new york and california for some reason because it would make a number the same? Instead of recognizing that new york has a higher cost of living and you need a higher minimum wage to buy the same amount of things?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So you want the real purchasing power of minimum wage to be less for people in new york and california for some reason because it would make a number the same? Instead of recognizing that new york has a higher cost of living and you need a higher minimum wage to buy the same amount of things? The cool thing about the minimum wage is it's okay to pay people more, fifteen dollars an hour should still be the absolutely bare minimum anyone in this godforsaken capitalist hellscape is making, and gently caress you for insinuating that I actually don't care about people and that's why I want them to make an actual amount of money Seriously, go gently caress yourself oocc, if you think 12/hr is okay federally because NY will be at fifteen in a year or two, depending on where you work. I could have used fifteen an hour just as badly when I lived in North Carolina
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:fifteen dollars an hour should still be the absolutely bare minimum anyone in this godforsaken capitalist hellscape is making Okay, so why didn't you vote for the democrats in your own state that were pushing for that? Like you are claiming you were so angry that the national democrat policy was 12 that that made you not support your local democrats pushing 15? You would give up yourself and everyone in your state getting 15 because someone else might only get 12 (and instead of 12 you favored them getting minimum wage lowered?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, so why didn't you vote for the democrats in your own state that were pushing for that? Like you are claiming you were so angry that the national democrat policy was 12 that that made you not support your local democrats pushing 15? You would give up yourself and everyone in your state getting 15 because someone else might only get 12 (and instead of 12 you favored them getting minimum wage lowered?) Stop responding to me, I'm disturbed by your obsession with me and with trying to find some way to make my desire for everyone in this country to make a livable wage into a shortsighted and selfish goal particularly by shifting the goal posts aeay from the 2016 election
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:This talk about 'fake leftists' is starting to sound like 'fake geek girls'. haha i like this post. ray of light in a lovely dark thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
For real though don't loving talk to me until you're willing to discuss why you think it's okay to not support a livable minimum wage at the federal level
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Stop responding to me, I'm disturbed by your obsession with me and with trying to find some way to make my desire for everyone in this country to make a livable wage into a shortsighted and selfish goal particularly by shifting the goal posts aeay from the 2016 election How does not voting democratic in a local election help get "everyone" anything? It seems super clear you didn't even know the minimum wage was changing, so it seems super clear you didn't even look at what democrats in your area had been running on and just made up a platform they probably had in your head then used that to justify not voting for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:How does not voting democratic in a local election help get "everyone" anything? It seems super clear you didn't even know the minimum wage was changing, so it seems super clear you didn't even look at what democrats in your area had been running on and just made up a platform they probably had in your head then used that to justify not voting for them. BENGHAZI 2 posted:For real though don't loving talk to me until you're willing to discuss why you think it's okay to not support a livable minimum wage at the federal level id like to applaud you on being a poo poo stupid moron while also successfully shifting from "its bad that hillary didnt come out in support of fight for fifteen" to "ah but you're bad because new york already had it" like that has anything to do with my point
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:For real though don't loving talk to me until you're willing to discuss why you think it's okay to not support a livable minimum wage at the federal level "don't talk to me anymore because you caught me that I didn't know democrats in my area were supporting the exact thing I was demanding and already had got it passed and that ruins my claim it's immoral to ever vote for democrats"
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:"don't talk to me anymore because you caught me that I didn't know democrats in my area were supporting the exact thing I was demanding and already had got it passed and that ruins my claim it's immoral to ever vote for democrats" whats that got to do with the federal minimum wage, also dont put words in my mouth
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:whats that got to do with the federal minimum wage, also dont put words in my mouth you said "The Democrats don't represent my interests. As such, I won't vote for them until they do." They represented your interest. Now you are claiming you didn't vote for local democrats to send a message to the national democratic party? Even though new york had it's governor election so it ended before the primary that hillary won and sanders lost? Did you time travel? You didn't vote in a local election because the future candidate in a national election of the party didn't support a certain level of minimum wage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:you said "The Democrats don't represent my interests. As such, I won't vote for them until they do." no, i didn't vote in a local election because i work and our voting system discriminates against broke rear end motherfuckers like me, but eat my whole rear end until you get around to telling me why it's okay that hillary didn't support 15/hr
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 00:45
|
|