|
Increasing labor protections by dismantling at-will employment would also help strengthen anti-discrimination laws already on the books. A rare intersection that actually impedes businesses from doing what ever racist poo poo and helps working class people.
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
computer parts posted:
gently caress off dude, we can address being poor without having to be black or making every hot take about being black . Even though being black has unique and particular challenges that also have a lot in common with being loving poor, you could actually talk about poo poo instead of sniping from the side for I know this post makes me a KKK Super Hitler-Cyclops but poo poo, the dude you are mocking actually made a good case for poor whites and why they might not be anything but a caricature for certain centrist views.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I am talking about poo poo. Poor whites don't support progressive measures anymore because they're racist. That was the reason why they did support progressive measures way back in the day, because it didn't apply to non-whites. OK, I am white, poor, and am an economic progressive. Guess I am KKK Super-Hitler, thanks. You fucks wonder why white poors vote Trump but you literally have made them an out group that some posters actually conjectured to end in the rural poverty thread. Any racial identity other than white have had it really bad and some poor whites had it better=never consider the poor white's concerns or look at them as an ally? It feels like you can't be poor and progressive unless you have another reason related to racial or sexual prejudice. Even when you agree with the
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No one cares about you personally. Except that expecting any actual wage, labor, or union reform is literally asking the sky of any political figure when superficial anti-discrimination efforts are paraded as progress (as long as you ignore systemic issues and at-will employment bypassing all of those protections).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:What are these "superficial anti-discrimination efforts", my dude? Loads of Title Nine when you have At-Will employment so you don't have to say poo poo compared to other countries where at least there is a documentation trail about it. Edit: I don't have to fire you for any reason at any time (the reason is racism, sexism, or you wouldn't sleep with me). When you have to document it, it is at least fodder for a case against the offending company when it pops up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You seem really mad about minorities getting equal protection as you. What protection? It doesn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Ok cool poverty is bad. I don't think this is controversial. FPTP means that one party is going the be the grease trap of any progressive thought in this country but would it pain you to actually acknowledge that there are disadvantaged white communities? Brainiac Five posted:Lots of EEOC claims are filed every year, my droog, because the people who run companies are really not all that smart at covering up their violations of Title IX protections, and while ending at-will employment would be a good thing, people don't file more EEOC claims because it's a long, difficult process that could end up with you getting blacklisted, and a lot of the worst cases are for people in really low-level jobs that can't risk it most of the time. EEOC punishments are also capped pretty low. Who has the goddamn money to get a lawyer when there were obvious violations for the meager compensation possibly awarded that has already been capped under the guise of tort reform? There needs to be a central reform of labor laws outside any prejudice legislation. If only to give prejudice legislation the tools it needs to accomplish its goals. Grognan fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's not what this thread is about. Dunno, understanding the white working class and their concerns might be a thing. The FPTP system that encourages really lovely divides might be another factor. There is certainly subdivisions in minority communities that really are not progressive and are not representative even though their perception has out-sized influence in lovely right wing media. (New Black Panthers) Just pointing that out. Please give poor whites a possible view when we start talking about economic quality. Which is probably the main sort of equality that most people care about regardless racial prejudices. There are a poo poo load of poor whites and they might not all be model progressives, they are still human and probably deserve some consideration. (please)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Ah, so the issue is that poor whites take a non-representative sample of minorities and assume that they're all like that. Dunno, is it Socratic shitposting?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:They are an incredibly lovely idea. The industry is intentionally structured to capture people living month-to-month and indebt them long-term for massive profit. That is the business model. Unless your life or residence is on the line you should never take them. I think -Troika- is being factious with this possibly, given that another poster literally cites unfair access to credit as being un-progressive assigning to why economic progressivism is racist and should be shunned. Not to put words in peoples mouths but Brainiac Five posted:Actually, people are suggesting measures that would inadvertently lead to the whites-only signs in this godawful analogy. drat, you be sounding like DWS, pioneering usury to new identities. Is equality simply ensuring access to abusive credit and possible(who are you kidding these are charter schools) education possibilities? I have proposed some things in this thread that might hit the common intersectionality of "helps the poor and working class" and "aids anti-racist measures". Noone(Computer Parts) gave a drat and went to the "you're racist" slap fight without addressing any of the poo poo I said. Grognan fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
If it attacks monied interests in the democratic party, it is racist. (literally no political figure wants to do the things that attack racist interests but cost some rich gently caress some money.) Edit: this is when computer parts comes in and says "you folks are racist" and uses that for a reason not to consider this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Sex work is work like any other and is exploitative only by virtue of existing within or adjacent to a capitalist framework of labour relations. Sex work in its current form normalizes rape in the same way that capitalism's exploitation of the proletariat normalizes and legitimizes theft. You can't stamp out a black market through prohibition and if people seriously want to put to bed the social ills created by an unregulated underground sex work industry they should instead decriminalise, legalise and regulate such industries for the better safety and working conditions of the workforce. Also might want to pair that with a universal minimum income to help alleviate the economic pressures that push people (disproportionately more minority and LGBT fyi) into selling their services in a dangerous and degrading situation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No, we should not treat child prostitution and adult prostitution identically. Not all forms of sex work are morally neutral and some of them must be crushed with revolutionary furor. Sex tourism, which is ultimately a means for sadsacks of all ages and professions as varied as immigration lawyers and executive vice presidents to simulate virility, is fundamentally tied into exploitation. Something tells me he didn't say or mean the bolded above, something also tells me that you're not going to slow down or give his ideas a fair shake.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Is there a name for intentionally fabricating and misstating your opponent's position so you don't have to actually engage or say anything of substance beside accusing someone of being racist, sexist, or anti-semitic? Like, we're quoting what you are responding to and in no way did he say what you said he did.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:"Being Effectronica?" Oh poo poo, that makes a lot more sense now. Forgot he got his main banned.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:He said that prohibition doesn't work, and all sex work should be legal. Child prostitution is sex work. I'm not surprised people who care a lot about catering to the white working class are so desperate to preserve prostitution they inadvertently say vile things, but there's no need to coddle you. Given he said to regulate sex work, that usually applies laws to it and he sure as poo poo did not also say "and I want existing consent laws to not apply to this field at all" I think you are making poo poo up in order to discredit what he said without actually addressing it. Grognan fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Why don't y'all get the pleasure centers of your brain scarified so you don't have to pay for sex anymore, no longer wanting it? I really haven't been able to pin down your position on much so far. How would you state your own position? It looks like there's a lot you certainly have objections to but I can't tell what exactly you think we should be doing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Man if Brainiac Five is what passes for "academic left", I think they've provided the best example for why reconciliation might be hard. An approach of harm reduction or out-right regulation for a black market industry who's workers are economically pressured by systemic issues is met with malicious misstatement and every ad-hominem toss-away that could be used.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Pretending that all sex work is identical is a good example of the kind of malicious misuse of leftist positions by idiots which necessitates regular purges. You are the only person that brought child prostitution into it. No one here is in favor of it. Nobody. You made this about child prostitution because you can't handle someone actually trying to look at a very real problem that's ignored because it is really inconvenient for a centrist liberal's position to acknowledge. Some how, there are other countries where prostitution as a field has unions and legitimate legal and labor protections. A marginalized group is better protected and has a better balance of power in society than simply being swept under the table and ignored. Is that un-progressive? It seems that the only way for you to have a position on this is to intimate that your opponent is for child prostitution. I'm pretty sure they make a pill for that now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Beginning to think that you actually don't have a leg to stand on if all you can do is fabricate a position that noone took, scoff that it is took much time to actually address, and then ad-hominem anyone that points the former out. Doubly so if you're poo poo posting to shut down discussion of actual problems that people are talking about because you don't have an answer that isn't an insult. Brainiac Five posted:And in those countries, people involved in sex work are still disproportionately ethnic minorities, LGBT, and women. The approach you're endorsing, which is in fact a reformist liberal one, doesn't solve the problem. Not to mention that your entire argument is based on a refusal to think, but rather dull ourselves and rely totally on the bestial phenomena of "common sense" and the gut. To be quite honest, forfeiting thinking should be a package deal with forfeiting breathing. You have the capacity, and you cannot refuse it. I even pointed this out when I said labor protections disproportionately help those disadvantaged and economically pressured into the sex trade. You just did it again. You constructed what my argument was based on out of whole cloth and then asked me to commit suicide. No poo poo it doesn't "solve" for whatever nebulous goal solving sex work is, but it can be addressed and treated. Grognan fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Have you considered getting help?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
twodot posted:I don't know, this seems pretty relevant, what do actual sex workers want policy-wise and can that be reconciled with the academic left? Not to harp on an old refrain, but literally having lived on-site and worked with working women (as bartender/handyman) in a brothel in Nevada, I might have gotten a little insight into some of the health and labor protections that the working women wanted. Most of the women were married or had stable partners that knew what they did. We had some working women fly to and from from LA because it was safer. Any business transaction between the working women and a client was up to the the lady. (Everything in the negotiation was recorded with consent because you would not believe the poo poo that johns would pull when they think they can get away with it.) Rooms had alarm buzzers to alert security to a situation. (again because some sick fucks use sex work's separation from legal recourse to do heinous and murderous poo poo) This is an North Nevadan perspective on the issue and I freely admit there are systemic problems overall. Asking a labor sector to work under the table is like expecting a kitchen to never see a health inspector. Then again, if we as Americans can't bother to make sure our agricultural workers aren't trafficked and marginalized it seems laughable that any mainstream political party would do anything but pretend the problems with unregulated sex work do not exist.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 06:12
|
|