|
Gio posted:Yeah I don't agree with this at all. Work gives people purpose, something to take pride in, solidarity with other workers, a sense of community. No it doesn't. People may develop those things around their jobs but their jobs do not provide them.
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Gio posted:And family expectations in any culture are that you are able to provide for said family vis-a-vis work, whether it's subsisting off of some dirt plot or working min. wage at Walmart. Some jobs provide more dignity than others, both in dollars and cents and a sense of fulfillment and pride and purpose, but ultimately work is a fundamental source we derive these things from. Nope.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Before the invention of work for pay humans were crippled by a sense of disempowerment and since we invented it everyone's been really happy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if being unemployed didn't mean I would starve I would be pretty happy not working at a big store, actually. I can't really think of any single, conceivably attainable thing in the world I would rather have than the ability not to go to work.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Also why do you think sitting around doing nothing is worse than working until you die? Isn't the whole supposed goal of work that you do it for a while so you can later sit around and do nothing?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
I'm not sure "our side" includes trump voters.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I definitely wouldn't have voted for Trump nor do I think it's a good idea to have done so but I don't think it's worth trying to exclude people for having ideas we think are bad. The problem with establishment Democrats and other centre politicians is not that they make bad decisions, it's that they make bad decisions because their hearts are in the wrong place. The whole purity argument the left is going on about is entirely based on where you stand. The left is raging at Clinton and Obama and friends not just because they hosed up but because what we see in them from the particular way they hosed up, the way they responded to their various fuckups, and their rhetoric. You can be with the left if you make bad decisions (just please not in power) but you can't be on the left if you don't have the right intentions. I'm not sure I think the terminally stupid are a better proposition than the terminally selfish, or that they are necessarily different from each other. If you are politically aware enough to dislike liberalism on the basis that its promises do not match its performance, and then vote for trump, you're dumb on a pretty staggering level. Someone who tries to critically assess a situation and reaches the decision "gently caress it I'm voting for the worst guy burn it all down" is not what I would call a fountain of potential. There's people who are misled and there are people who have access to the information and just don't care to make a rational decision and don't consider the people they know will suffer as a result of their irrational decision making. I don't think they're good prospects for a united left front. Someone willing to throw everyone else under the bus for their own sense of spite is not someone we can work with. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
"If someone is an idiot then they do idiotic things." I am prepared to accept that people can change but someone who last month thought that accelerationism is a good idea with full understanding of the damage it will do to everyone in the world, is not someone who is part of a leftist platform. They can go make the nihilism party or something but I see no reason why I should want someone whose response to difficulty is to become politically suicidal, such a person is at best unstable support and at worst actively counterproductive, such as voting for the polar opposite of your desired policy position.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Wait, what do you mean by this? Where do you think their allegiances truly lie? Please, enlighten us Apparently ideologically bound to centrism regardless of whether it does anyone any good or whether it wins votes, very strange tbh. Possibly also their own careers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:All you need to know about centrist establishment Democrats is that up the page there's a whole thread full of them furiously masturbating to the idea of a CIA lead coup in the US. Eh, the US has a constitution because the people who set it up didn't believe that democracy would always produce good outcomes, the idea that a state should have methods of protecting itself against the results of its democratic processes is not a bizzare one. If anything, the idea that executive power in the government rests in the hands of one person is kind of dictatorial in the classical sense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Turning over the government to the Keystone Kops of torture is not an outcome preferable to a democratically elected government you don't like. The US as a state, however, was sort of founded on using paramilitaries to remove an executive you don't like. The idea that the modern incarnation of democracy is infallible and nothing could be better ever is kind of strange, it's quite vulnerable to corruption of its purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
I think that rather depends on who is elected.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You don't skip to it but it needs to be recognized as a legitimate and desirable end. It demonstrates the weakness of the system and invites correction.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes but a democratic system must represent what the people want to some extent. If they don't see the legitimacy of centrism as a desireable result the only way you can change the rules to encourage it is to weaken the democracy. And compromise is the only way democracy actually works. I'm not sure who "they" is in this context but it is absolutely possible for people to not like either the center position, or "centralism" as it applies to the positive affirmation that basically liberal capitalism is great and we shouldn't really change much ever. The point of a good government is to serve its people well, democracy is a tool to do that, not the end goal in and of itself. The very existence of the US constitution is based on the notion that democracy does not produce good government of its own accord. And that some limitations and obligations of the government are held to be largely immutable and not subject to democratic modification or revocation through compromise, only by unified support. I don't entirely understand what you're arguing but the idea that the middle ground is a: automatically good, b: the only way democracy can work, and c: unchanging and represented by "centrism" which is not a descriptive but a prescriptive ideology doesn't make sense. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
I would suggest that the borderline anarchist dislike of government displayed by portions of the republican base is relatively radical.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 23:09
|
|