281–290 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why so many people get so angry about something so inconsequential.
No one is angry. That's the point. The point is that no one should care about race, but everyone all of the sudden is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The office exists within society. Some things exist everywhere you go in society. You don't give up ethics and morals because you cross the threshold of your place of business. Ignoring social problems in the workplace because it is a workplace is how we avoid solving those problems as a society. The office is exactly where we should be advocating for things, because it is where we spend the most time and can affect…
Advocating for what things exactly? It might be a strawman, but I’m going to guess and it would be something like an end to perceived workplace raceism/sexism/*isms. If you let in political advocacy movements from the left do you really want political movements from the right? Or is it just ok if the left is advocating for it? I kinda think the left is trying to have their equity cake and eat it too… To some people (…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think it was the benefits, rather than the we're-a-family, always on-call, live your work culture employers have been pushing?
I think it started with college campus activism 10-20 years ago. If you feel empowered to shut down the dean’s office to oust a professor, you’ll probably think the same techniques can be applied to your workplace. It certainly doesn’t help that your workplace strives to walk and quack like some kind of college campus.
Is this not a great thing? Having a walkable place with quality of life amenities is a positive thing when youre talking about somewhere you spend at least 1/3 of the day
People are human. But work is work. The canonical point of a workplace is to come together to fulfill the aims of the entrepreneurs. The personal aims of the workers are fulfilled best outside of work. Just stop to think about it logically for a minute... is the workplace the best place to circulate a petition condemning something that has nothing to do with work? The workplace necessarily is going to bring together…
—Gerhard Steidl
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/22/gerhard-steidl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The beauty of the free market is that by pursuing selfish interests, people wind up benefiting others as well. The failure of collective markets stems from nobody has figured out how to get people to stop acting selfishly.
> The beauty of the free market is that by pursuing selfish interests, people wind up benefiting others as well The free market does not encourage pursuing action where the benefits accrue to people outside of the transaction, but it does encourage actions where the harms are so externalized. A hypothetical optimally regulated market systems with Pigovian taxes and subsidies to internalize externalities would in theo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fully agree. It seems so stupid. Why do people care about what color the emoji is? Don't they have real problems?
The reason is because "woke" is racism in reverse. As long as there's racism (in any direction), color matters. You can't treat or think of people differently on the basis of race without knowing who is in what race. The last thing "woke" people want is for discrimination on the basis of race to disappear, or for the color of people's skin to no longer factor in to how they are judged or treated. Edit: agreed with a…
>Beware of Identity politics. I'll rephrase that: have nothing to do with identity politics. I remember very well the first time I heard the saying "The Personal Is Political". It began as a sort of reaction to defeats and downturns that followed 1968: a consolation prize, as you might say, for people who had missed that year. I knew in my bones that a truly Bad Idea had entered the discourse. Nor was I wrong. People began to stand up at meetings and orate about how they 'felt', not about what or how they thought, and about who they were rather than what (if anything) they had done or stood for. It became the replication in even less interesting form of the narcissism of the small difference, because each identity group begat its sub-groups and "specificities". This tendency has often been satirised—the overweight caucus of the Cherokee transgender disabled lesbian faction demands a hearing on its needs—but never satirised enough. You have to have seen it really happen. From a way of being radical it very swiftly became a way of being reactionary; the Clarence Thomas hearings demonstrated this to all but the most dense and boring and selfish, but then, it was the dense and boring and selfish who had always seen identity politics as their big chance. Anyway, what you swiftly realise if you peek over the wall of your own immediate neighbourhood or environment, and travel beyond it, is, first, that we have a huge surplus of people who wouldn't change anything about the way they were born, or the group they were born into, but second that "humanity" (and the idea of change) is best represented by those who have the wit not to think, or should I say feel, in this way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The supply of non woke workers just isn't there The responses to the Basecamp and Coinbase announcements were equally mixed between people who wanted to avoid them, and people who want to seek them out. There are plenty of people who want work to be about working together on work. I for one want work to be welcoming and productive for everyone. Ironically, the best way to accomplish that is to focus on work, and not…
> I for one want work to be welcoming and productive for everyone. Ironically, the best way to accomplish that is to focus on work, and not non-work. Sure, if you’re a white, middle-aged, straight, cis male (speaking as one myself). But for other people, it’s not as easy to “leave your politics at home”, especially if you’re politics are “can I please be paid fairly in comparison to other workers” or “sorry, I’m late…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not "divine right of king" by any stretch of the imagination. It is a contract for exchange of service between to parties. Because you agreed to exchange their money for your labor. During that time you are obligated to do what you are agreed to be paid to do under the conditions agreed to at time of hire. And yes they are owed your skills because they are paying you for them, that is how any exchange of servic…
You are right, we are selling our labour. But the idea that that means that we are selling our _time_ is a recent development in human history. Most societies in the past would have a hard time even understanding the idea that one's time could belong to your employer, es explained by David Graeber in "bullshit jobs"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The office exists within society. Some things exist everywhere you go in society. You don't give up ethics and morals because you cross the threshold of your place of business. Ignoring social problems in the workplace because it is a workplace is how we avoid solving those problems as a society. The office is exactly where we should be advocating for things, because it is where we spend the most time and can affect…
Advocating for what things exactly? It might be a strawman, but I’m going to guess and it would be something like an end to perceived workplace raceism/sexism/*isms. If you let in political advocacy movements from the left do you really want political movements from the right? Or is it just ok if the left is advocating for it? I kinda think the left is trying to have their equity cake and eat it too… To some people (…
The idea that both sides are equal is just fallacious. One side is advocating to be more aware of systematic racism and the other tried to incite revolt while rejecting the validity of our last election. One is advocating for a large discussion and the other is working against democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The belief that without Western / British "imperialism and mismanagement", Jews, Muslims (Shia and Suni) (and Christians) would just peacefully co-exist in Jerusalem is ... wishful thinking at best.
Well, the violence in the Levant was certainly lower when the Ottomans were in charge. https://history.stackexchange.com/a/28531