If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

What is the benefit to a business from employees not working for extended periods of time? I didn't use the word charity, but it works well enough. It could certainly be seen as "the nice thing to do". But again, I don't see how it can be construed as productive for the business other than "optics".

You did use the word "charity":

Businesses aren't charities, and they don't remain in business by being the ones burdened by those considerations.

The benefit to a business, given the appropriate context, would be securing loyalty and a good work ethic in the future by treating a current employee graciously and not penalizing her for starting a family.

I've been the primary caretaker at times when the situation called for it, and I don't feel like that put my masculinity into question or something.

Neither do I. My point is that a lot of people do feel this way, and some have suggested as much about my admission that I'm usually the one who does the dishes and cleans up the house. I also cook, although my wife is still way better at cooking than I am.

@CASSETTEISGOD I don't have enough beef with anything you said to keep the discussion going in an argumentative fashion. I also don't have a fondness for corporate culture, but I do see globalism and incorporation as a logical outcome of complex social systems, if not absolutely necessary.

 

[CiG]

 

[arg]

View attachment 12418

And then the temps eventually get good and we start liking them but the fatass mother comes back and we have to fire the temp cuz there's no place for them and they're sad and shit. Pregnant women in the office, what a pain in the ass

 

[Dak]

You did use the word "charity":

The benefit to a business, given the appropriate context, would be securing loyalty and a good work ethic in the future by treating a current employee graciously and not penalizing her for starting a family.

Ah, so I did. So what you're saying is that by paying someone for being unproductive (as it relates to the business and its customers), it will improve long term production, in the same way that businesses provide paid vacation or sick time. I'm fine with that, but differential access to time off isn't exactly a "progressive" definition of egalitarianism. Never mind that the amount of time off taken for a starting a family is extremely variable. Is a business supposed to pay for a month? A year? Indefinitely? What about when hiring - a person who has been working, networking, learning, etc for the previous 5 years is likely more qualified than someone who has been changing diapers and going to the park during that timeframe. Different choices come with different positives and negatives. I would charge the progressives with being myopicly materialistic here in only focusing on one potential economic negative (pay), rather than the total economic picture, and the non-materialistic positives.

 

[CiG]

Also, I really don't have a heart that bleeds for men who feel like they're victims of women's successes. And plenty of men who do suffer at the very bottom of society blame women for their lot in life. Pretty pathetic.

I wanted to expand a little more on this mentality towards failing/failed men in society. It's something that's been bothering me a lot lately.

Why does this seem to be a dominant view on the left today? This sneering attitude towards men who aren't living up to some arbitrary standard usually enforced by the very enemies of the left? There is nothing interesting, revolutionary, egalitarian or necessarily even left-wing about a lack of empathy or sympathy for failing/failed men.

The left used to care about the downtrodden, but now they seem to turn their nose up at the issues of men (issues which tend to transcend race btw) while simultaneously preaching fire and brimstone because women in power aren't wielding enough power.

The dominant view throughout all of human history was to hide women from the real world and infantilise them and to completely discount the fragilities of men and only recognize the ones who succeed.

Congratulations, by perpetually casting women in the role of victim requiring constant governmental/social intervention and discarding failing men as pathetic and not even worthy of sympathy or help you've (we've) become old world Tories. It's completely retrograde.

 

[Einherjar86]

I wanted to expand a little more on this mentality towards failing/failed men in society. It's something that's been bothering me a lot lately.

Why does this seem to be a dominant view on the left today? This sneering attitude towards men who aren't living up to some arbitrary standard usually enforced by the very enemies of the left? There is nothing interesting, revolutionary, egalitarian or necessarily even left-wing about a lack of empathy or sympathy for failing/failed men.

The left used to care about the downtrodden, but now they seem to turn their nose up at the issues of men (issues which tend to transcend race btw) while simultaneously preaching fire and brimstone because women in power aren't wielding enough power.

The dominant view throughout all of human history was to hide women from the real world and infantilise them and to completely discount the fragilities of men and only recognize the ones who succeed.

Congratulations, by perpetually casting women in the role of victim requiring constant governmental/social intervention and discarding failing men as pathetic and not even worthy of sympathy or help you've (we've) become old world Tories. It's completely retrograde.

So, can I say what bothers me about this perspective?

The right is supposedly about self-autonomy and pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps; but they’re suddenly bleeding hearts when it comes to the plight of poor white men.

I’m not saying that poor whites shouldn’t be an issue; but when right-wing voters turn their nose up at inner city blacks, it looks like racially motivated concern.

 

[Dak]

Because there are literally no federal, state, local, or private programs for the urban poor. Certainly not hundreds even.

 

[Einherjar86]

Plenty of those programs would help the rural poor too, Dak. Those people just vote for candidates who don't support such programs.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So, can I say what bothers me about this perspective?

The right is supposedly about self-autonomy and pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps; but they’re suddenly bleeding hearts when it comes to the plight of poor white men.

I’m not saying that poor whites shouldn’t be an issue; but when right-wing voters turn their nose up at inner city blacks, it looks like racially motivated concern.

Of course it's racially motivated, just as blacks are racially motivated when they vote for Dems 9 to 1.

 

[Einherjar86]

Democrats who would enact policies to help poor whites?

You're right that it's racially motivated in both directions.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Which policies would those be, as of the last couple decades? The Obama admin succeeded in helping along heroin overdoses of white trash, and sure now they have health insurance should they so survive, but most economic growth is driven towards coastal states and the cities, aided by government programs/funding/bubbles which concentrate growth there.

 

[Dak]

Plenty of those programs would help the rural poor too, Dak. Those people just vote for candidates who don't support such programs.

That wasn't my point. My point was that, if you were to simply sum the total of all programs for the disadvantaged in America, we would certainly be in the tens of thousands at least, and none of these would be "white only" or something stupid like that. Stop acting like no one is stopping to think of poor minorities.

 

[EternalMetal]

I know this is true; but I don't think biology should justify imposing expectations that in turn affect employment. This can happen very subtly, and can also be difficult to diagnose. For instance, that some employers hire fewer women because they factor in the potential for a future pregnancy.

Unfortunately, when a couple gets pregnant, the woman is the one who has to shoulder the burden of childbearing, birthing, and immediate care of the infant (breastfeeding has many benefits and should be the choice of any responsible couple who wants the best for their child). Surely a large corporate powerhouse could easily afford ~2 months of maternity leave, but there are also many smaller businesses where this could be very burdensome for a business owner. This doesnt even consider jobs with a more physical component, of which pregnancy may hamper productivity for longer than just maternity leave. It may sound callous, sexist, etc to you, but I do believe that there is justification in more than just a few obscure instances where hiring women of childbearing age is a risk.

So, can I say what bothers me about this perspective?

The right is supposedly about self-autonomy and pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps; but they’re suddenly bleeding hearts when it comes to the plight of poor white men.

I’m not saying that poor whites shouldn’t be an issue; but when right-wing voters turn their nose up at inner city blacks, it looks like racially motivated concern.

Nobody hates government subsidy more than the hard working yet struggling lower-class, especially when it adds to their tax burden. It seems to me that the politics are turning what should be a rural vs urban conflict into a racial one. Or, to extend on what CIG was trying to say, additionally into a competition of which identity group is most burdened (sex, race, gender?), and how to skew "fairness" into that direction.

Now everything is about identity politics, and those who fall into the white and male categories are somehow competing against groups with government enforced advantages. The majority of white America has never been a part of the rich aristocracy, so they are paying the price of "equality" in full force. This is why Trump was elected.

 

[Einherjar86]

Unfortunately, when a couple gets pregnant, the woman is the one who has to shoulder the burden of childbearing, birthing, and immediate care of the infant (breastfeeding has many benefits and should be the choice of any responsible couple who wants the best for their child). Surely a large corporate powerhouse could easily afford ~2 months of maternity leave, but there are also many smaller businesses where this could be very burdensome for a business owner. This doesnt even consider jobs with a more physical component, of which pregnancy may hamper productivity for longer than just maternity leave. It may sound callous, sexist, etc to you, but I do believe that there is justification in more than just a few obscure instances where hiring women of childbearing age is a risk.

I get all that, but I do think it's presumptuous to hire a less qualified man instead of a more qualified woman because she might get pregnant. Statistics are also in favor of women as far as workplace productivity goes, so... not sure fear of pregnancy outweighs that.

Nobody hates government subsidy more than the hard working yet struggling lower-class, especially when it adds to their tax burden. It seems to me that the politics are turning what should be a rural vs urban conflict into a racial one. Or, to extend on what CIG was trying to say, additionally into a competition of which identity group is most burdened (sex, race, gender?), and how to skew "fairness" into that direction.

The hard-working lower class also tends to not understand what it is they're voting for. I don't have to remind everyone here about the republican voters who didn't understand that the ACA is "Obamacare." The white working class relies on news sources that are as vile as any left-wing site that gets hammered on this forum.

Now everything is about identity politics, and those who fall into the white and male categories are somehow competing against groups with government enforced advantages. The majority of white America has never been a part of the rich aristocracy, so they are paying the price of "equality" in full force. This is why Trump was elected.

It's always been about identity politics. It's just that now politics is swinging in favor of minorities and large numbers of whites are annoyed.

Which policies would those be, as of the last couple decades? The Obama admin succeeded in helping along heroin overdoses of white trash, and sure now they have health insurance should they so survive, but most economic growth is driven towards coastal states and the cities, aided by government programs/funding/bubbles which concentrate growth there.

Ha, well health care for one...

Also, there's no reason why state welfare plans can't account for rural and urban poor. But as EM suggested, rural whites often scoff at the idea of being given "handouts." This is predominantly ideological, and has little to do with any economic intellect or concern. They just don't want to be bleeding heart liberal commies.

That wasn't my point. My point was that, if you were to simply sum the total of all programs for the disadvantaged in America, we would certainly be in the tens of thousands at least, and none of these would be "white only" or something stupid like that. Stop acting like no one is stopping to think of poor minorities.

Stop telling me how to act boss man.

I'm not saying that no one here is thinking about poor minorities. But you're deluding yourself if you think the average white working-class person is thinking about black welfare.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I get all that, but I do think it's presumptuous to hire a less qualified man instead of a more qualified woman because she might get pregnant. Statistics are also in favor of women as far as workplace productivity goes, so... not sure fear of pregnancy outweighs that.

How is that presumptuous? "Qualifications" are often bullshit; there's no reason to need a highly-qualified data-entry monkey over a less-qualified one, and pregnancy/maternity leave is a significant negative impact on productivity. What statistics favor the idea that women are more productive?

The hard-working lower class also tends to not understand what it is they're voting for. I don't have to remind everyone here about the republican voters who didn't understand that the ACA is "Obamacare." The white working class relies on news sources that are as vile as any left-wing site that gets hammered on this forum.

And blacks vote for Democrats that have hardly at all narrowed the white-black gap (in income, victimization, health, etcetc). Your first mistake is in assuming that democracy holds politicians accountable for their actions more often than not. Your second is in assuming that you know what poor whites value more than they do (that article Dak posted a few weeks back regarding self-interests was nice).

Ha, well health care for one...

Also, there's no reason why state welfare plans can't account for rural and urban poor. But as EM suggested, rural whites often scoff at the idea of being given "handouts." This is predominantly ideological, and has little to do with any economic intellect or concern. They just don't want to be bleeding heart liberal commies.

As I hinted, health insurance doesn't mean better health. Lower-class white people have shit health these days.

Everyone does. Do you think that the blacks strongly over-represented making a reasonably decent and safe wage at the USPS see their work as a "handout"? Do you think Joe "MURRICA" Sixpack the soldier that gets free boarding, healthcare, and college tuition for shooting at things in the desert for a few years sees himself as receiving a "handout"? One of the most unethical things a politician can do is to take away the shame component of a free lunch by giving the unproductive the opportunity to tip a quarter, because that's what breeds entitlement.

 

[Dak]

you're deluding yourself if you think the average white working-class person is thinking about black welfare.

Because they're working class. I hope that was a joke.

On a separate note, health insurance is for saving already sick people. It has absolutely fuck all to do with creating a population which doesn't need to use it. As derived, it simply keeps sick people alive longer.

 

[CiG]

So, can I say what bothers me about this perspective?

The right is supposedly about self-autonomy and pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps; but they’re suddenly bleeding hearts when it comes to the plight of poor white men.

I’m not saying that poor whites shouldn’t be an issue; but when right-wing voters turn their nose up at inner city blacks, it looks like racially motivated concern.

One could say the left are all about secularism, opposing fundamentalism and fascism yet they suddenly bend over backwards to apologise for Islam and its practices and single out critics of Islam as worthy of ostracisation and even violent opposition.

Yes, the right are playing into identity politics and much of their doing it is due to the left's insanity with identity politics. The right is classically considered reactionary after all and the left have created something for them to react to.

Anyway, I'm not sure how this relates to what I said as I was specifically trying to criticise your mentality from a left-wing pov. It's an extension of the feminist contradiction that wants men to soften and be more open, dismantle "toxic masculinity" etc but at the same time men aren't ever allowed to complain, have problems that need to be addressed or be vulnerable.

It's always been about identity politics. It's just that now politics is swinging in favor of minorities and large numbers of whites are annoyed.

No it's that it is swinging away from equality and into the realm of favouritism and racially discriminatory government policies.

Anti-white = progress.

 

[no country for old wainds]

his point is that the left's identity politics is itself a reaction against another brand of the same, which had swung things away from equality into the realm of favouritism etc too, just in the opposite direction. this current SJW movement did not start the pendulum swinging.

 

[CiG]

Everybody knows that, history didn't start in the 2000's. I would counter a point like that by simply saying the left shouldn't justify doing something because the opposition does it, it's exactly why I harp on about people being unprincipled as fuck.

Also, SJWs could've quite easily advocated for minorities because that is a goal with merits in and of itself, however they've added a new anti-white, anti-male, anti-straight, anti-west dimension to their rhetoric which, along with immigration policy, has essentially given birth to the alt-right, a movement made up almost entirely of former moderates.

 

[no country for old wainds]

i think identity politics is regularly viewed as a recent phenomenon both by progressives and conservatives, and ein's point was in response to a post that implied as much. in fact, the single biggest problem with western society right now is that history may as well have started in the '00s for all the majority of people know about it.