Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 390: Where Uvalde Cowboys Gone?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/1539209524711768070

Steve King, ladies and gentlemen. Don't forget the vast majority of Republicans agree with him, but will keep quiet about it.

I spent Juneteenth all day in the hot sun hoeing and pulling weeds and thinking about what it would have been like to have been a slave.

weird flex but ok

haha, I'm in danger
https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1539298936946581504?s=20&t=dMSuvygeL1a2fluV8hsvqg

Check out 205(d) too. Can't wait to move to Texas and open my Church of Abortions, Drag Shows, and Critical Race Theory that cannot be "shut down or suspended . . . under any pretext whatever"

But only if your church is a Church of God capital C capital G.

Otherwise they probably won't count it as a real church.

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1539058659304546304

of course he's pay to win

This smug motherfucker

Kenri posted...

Check out 205(d) too. Can't wait to move to Texas and open my Church of Abortions, Drag Shows, and Critical Race Theory that cannot be "shut down or suspended . . . under any pretext whatever"

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations/churches-defined

Lets do it. I will 100% identify as a member of whatever church it takes to make it real.

xp1337 posted...

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1539058659304546304

of course he's pay to win

when you think Ted Cruz can't get worse

xp1337 posted...

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1539058659304546304

of course he's pay to win

Fuck now I have something in common with Ted Cruz brb killing myself

xp1337 posted...

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1539058659304546304

of course he's pay to win

Don't tell the conservapedia people that Ted Cruz is a gamer.

The gun bill passed a procedural vote in the Senate:

https://twitter.com/steventdennis/status/1539430568328314881?s=21

Hopefully this actually gets passed

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1539604110084808706?s=21&t=okfQlcEViS5bHvbp8wM30A

Genuinely, who can save us rn

Apparently democrats are spending money on Trump Republicans in primaries against more 'moderate republicans'

Jesus.

I almost posted about that, but didnt feel like getting manic when the centrists called that good strategy.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Apparently democrats are spending money on Trump Republicans in primaries against more 'moderate republicans'

Jesus.

Because they want to win. All potential ramifications be damned

I would hope even then they would've learned from 2016

I'm a moderate, and even I think that's fucking stupid on the Democrats' part, after what happened in 2016.

masterplum posted...

Because they want to win. All potential ramifications be damned

Maybe spend money on your own candidates then. They want to win and are also stupid.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Maybe spend money on your own candidates then. They want to win and are also stupid.

You have diminishing returns on advertising. If you can get some really henious candidates you can win races, such as the Alabama senate seat in ... 2018?

But obviously if it doesn't work it's a disaster for democracy

Spending on the crazier opponent in primaries has worked ("legitimate rape" guy in 2014) but yes when it backfires it tends to be disproportionately worse.

I'd be curious if someone actually had the stats on when it's worked vs when it hasn't but it's hard to give a nod to that strategy post-2016.

Part of me feels like if Hillary Clinton had run in 2020 against Trump without having run against him in 2016 she might have been able to win. This is probably faulty logic since a big part of the reason Trump won in 2016 was because he was "not-Hillary".

I wish the ads were actually like secret recordings of establishment Dems overheard saying they fear the election of the extreme candidate

Kenri posted...

Because it sucks and no one wants to do it? Basic supply and demand shit

Clearly people want to do it, since their warehouses are staffed. Based on what I see in this topic and on the crazier parts of Reddit, it's clear that a lot of millennials that are chronically shitposting on Twitter are either completely sheltered, or willfully ignorant that not everyone is a college educated white collar worker. There seems to be a sentiment that people working at Amazon warehouses are just doing that temporarily, but the truth is that not everyone is born with the skillset/abilities necessary to do skilled work, and there's nothing wrong with that.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Clearly people want to do it, since their warehouses are staffed. Based on what I see in this topic and on the crazier parts of Reddit, it's clear that a lot of millennials that are chronically shitposting on Twitter are either completely sheltered, or willfully ignorant that not everyone is a college educated white collar worker. There seems to be a sentiment that people working at Amazon warehouses are just doing that temporarily, but the truth is that not everyone is born with the skillset/abilities necessary to do skilled work, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I think there's a difference between WANTING to work in an Amazon Warehouse, and HAVING to work in an Amazon Warehouse because you don't have other options (because, as you said, some people lack the ability to perform skilled labor).

There are plenty of millennials that are college educated and working such jobs. A lot of them are the ones who are pushing for proper treatment.

Some people might be well-suited to warehouse work, but that doesn't mean they should be exploited, especially if they have been in white collar jobs and know that it is completely sensible for corporations to take better care of their workers.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Clearly people want to do it, since their warehouses are staffed.

They take the job because it's (relatively) high paying, but people clearly don't want to actually do it, because turnover is insanely high.

Sure, but none of that explains why an Amazon warehouse worker should be making the same as an electrician, or an engineer. At the end of the day, wages aren't based on how "hard" you work, but are based on the skills and experience you bring to the table.

Amazon could also provide better working conditions.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Sure, but none of that explains why an Amazon warehouse worker should be making the same as an electrician, or an engineer.

Because that might cause them to stay and continue to do the job, rather than leaving. (But probably not because money only goes so far to mitigate horrible working conditions.)

I'm not sure what you want me to say; you asked "why people expect Amazon warehouse jobs to be high paying" -- the answer is because the job sucks. Your point that experience is how pay is actually determined (it isn't, but that's irrelevant) is a non-sequitur when talking about people's expectations.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Sure, but none of that explains why an Amazon warehouse worker should be making the same as an electrician, or an engineer. At the end of the day, wages aren't based on how "hard" you work, but are based on the skills and experience you bring to the table.

They shouldn't be making as much as an electrician or an engineer.

Electricians and engineers should be making more than what SHOULD be the lowest possible living wage.

Do you not understand how "just pay everybody more" would make already spiraling out of control inflation even worse? Having taken a high school economics course should be a requirement for people to get a license to post their opinions on the internet. The world would be a much better place if people understood the basic fundamentals of how an economy works.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Do you not understand how "just pay everybody more" would make already spiraling out of control inflation even worse? Having taken a high school economics course should be a requirement for people to get a license to post their opinions on the internet. The world would be a much better place if people understood the basic fundamentals of how an economy works.

I think the other issue is that "pay everyone more" comes with the addendum that MAYBE the super rich corporations and super rich individuals who have benefited tremendously from our capitalist system (see: massive profits and increases in wealth during the pandemic, when others were losing their jobs and struggling) should have to pay more in taxes, or should be compelled to not price gouge in order to make greater profits on the backs of human suffering. Granted, they're already price gouging even without people receiving higher wages, so we might as well give people more money to make up for it.

Like, do you believe that certain people should just get fucked by our society? Do you believe that it is the price we have to pay as a society, that some people--who might be working as hard as they possibly can (or harder)--should still have no chance whatsoever of succeeding and having a decent life?

Inviso posted...

Like, do you believe that certain people should just get fucked by our society? Do you believe that it is the price we have to pay as a society, that some people--who might be working as hard as they possibly can (or harder)--should still have no chance whatsoever of succeeding and having a decent life?

I mean yeah this isn't BT's first time ranting about people in unapproved careers deserving to suffer

https://twitter.com/juliabacha/status/1539673632062013446?s=21&t=okfQlcEViS5bHvbp8wM30A

So, this is insane

CelesMyUserName posted...

I mean yeah this isn't BT's first time ranting about people in unapproved careers deserving to suffer

Yeah, I know that he's kinda heartless in his world view, but he's literally using the words "not everyone is born with the necessary skillsets". There's a difference (still heartless, but a difference nonetheless) between saying "You're too lazy to deserve success" and "I acknowledge that you're physically incapable of success through no fault of your own, and I still think you deserve to suffer for being born inferior".

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/juliabacha/status/1539673632062013446?s=21&t=okfQlcEViS5bHvbp8wM30A

So, this is insane

Wait.

Wait.

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait.

Is the logic they're using that a boycott is economic activity and not speech...but corporations donating unlimited money to political campaigns IS speech?

Inviso posted...

Wait.

Wait.

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait.

Is the logic they're using that a boycott is economic activity and not speech...but corporations donating unlimited money to political campaigns IS speech?

"Trump appointee who received a 'not qualified' designation from the ABA." (Also worked as general counsel for a Senator who co-sponsored the federal anti-BDS law)

sounds about right

conservatives now mandated to own Disney+ subscriptions

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Do you not understand how "just pay everybody more" would make already spiraling out of control inflation even worse? Having taken a high school economics course should be a requirement for people to get a license to post their opinions on the internet. The world would be a much better place if people understood the basic fundamentals of how an economy works.

you realize that basic econ classes are mostly philosophy, right?? the thing you constantly say is useless to educate people on?

you joke but texas already used it as a model to pass a law requiring banks and others to publicly affirm they won't discrminate against the gun industry.

Similar efforts exist for fossil fuel industries as well.

Inviso posted...

Like, do you believe that certain people should just get fucked by our society? Do you believe that it is the price we have to pay as a society, that some people--who might be working as hard as they possibly can (or harder)--should still have no chance whatsoever of succeeding and having a decent life?

You get out of life what you put into it. Noone here is "fucked" by our society, because we have things like welfare and other social programs to make sure that people can cover their necessities. If you ask me whether I think that someone who doesn't work and is living off of welfare deserves to have a giant house and a new car and a 70 inch TV, I would say absolutely not.

Kenri posted...

you realize that basic econ classes are mostly philosophy, right?? the thing you constantly say is useless to educate people on?

I have never heard someone compare philosophy to economics before, and I have no idea what you're talking about. And I never once said philosphy is "useless to educate people on", I just said that the people who are signing up for a philosophy degree expecting to translate that into a well paying job are disconnected from reality.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

You get out of life what you put into it. Noone here is "fucked" by our society, because we have things like welfare and other social programs to make sure that people can cover their necessities. If you ask me whether I think that someone who doesn't work and is living off of welfare deserves to have a giant house and a new car and a 70 inch TV, I would say absolutely not.

What do you think of switching welfare to cash payments only? Then people can decide if they want to spend it on food or a 70 inch TV.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

I have never heard someone compare philosophy to economics before

jfc

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

You get out of life what you put into it. Noone here is "fucked" by our society, because we have things like welfare and other social programs to make sure that people can cover their necessities. If you ask me whether I think that someone who doesn't work and is living off of welfare deserves to have a giant house and a new car and a 70 inch TV, I would say absolutely not.

I think someone who works two or three full-time jobs deserves to live a life where they're at least comfortable in the 48-88 hours of a 168-hour week that they're not working. They should not be forced to struggle at, or below the poverty line, and rely on social programs that are constantly in danger of being cut because people believe everyone should be punished for the actions of a handful of "welfare queens" who game the system.

By your own words, these are people who for one reason or another, have no other option than to work these low-skill, manual labor jobs. These are jobs we, as a society, want and NEED someone to do. So why should those jobs not afford a basic living wage? Because a couple of anecdotal cases make everyone look bad?

Kenri posted...

jfc

Dont you know? Economics are just an immutable fact of reality like math and physics

Also, I'd like to point out that this discussion was about people being paid a living wage for ANY job, regardless of its skill level, yet your response was the tonal whiplash of "well, they have welfare and social programs to cover their necessities", followed by "I don't think someone without a job should be able to live large on welfare". Not only do those two viewpoints inherently contradict each other (because, let's be completely honest, the latter is largely made up and punishing them would largely punish ALL welfare recipients, including those who are literally working themselves to the bone and STILL need welfare to survive), but like, someone who isn't working has no real impact on whether someone who IS working should be paid well for their job.

HeroicCrono posted...

What do you think of switching welfare to cash payments only? Then people can decide if they want to spend it on food or a 70 inch TV.

In a perfect world, welfare would be pre budgeted to cover off necessities (food, clothes, shelter) in order to prevent people doing just that. I grew up in a poor neighbourhood, and a lot of families basically already did that (spend welfare/government cheques on electronics, drugs, leasing a brand new car, etc) to the detriment of the health and wellbeing of their kids. Society is in an unfortunately position where a certain subset of society has absolutely no interest in contributing to the running of society. You can't just ignore this group, because then they commit crimes to meet their needs/wants. You can give them carte blanche welfare cheques, but a subset of that group uses the money to buy drugs while their kids go hungry. You can't just give them as much money as they want because that's completely unsustainable and removes any incentive for people to contribute to society.

It's a stupid stupid problem that unfortunately has no clear solution