If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

history may as well have started in the '00s for all the majority of people know about it.

Yup.

 

[CiG]

Agreed, this is why "Hitler" and "Nazi" are thrown around 24/7 now.

 

[Einherjar86]

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 ones that suggest as much.

A search on men, women, and productivity in the workplace yields multiple results.

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).

Actually, I don't think democracy holds politicians accountable; but voters are a part of democracy, and voters often don't hold politicians accountable.

I don't think I understand what poor whites want. I just think I know when certain policy decisions would yield net positive results for them. That doesn't mean I know what they want.

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.

No, I wouldn't say they perceive those things as handouts; but then, I was never talking about people who are actually working for a wage...

The point is that there are people who need help, and not because they're lazy or don't want to be productive. This can be done by getting them jobs, but until a job is available I don't see the problem with providing financial assistance. Refusing assistance because it's "communist" is just plain ignorance.

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

Poor choice of words. I actually just meant the welfare of black people--not welfare programs that benefit black people.

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.

While I may not disagree, I think this has to do with more than just what kind of health care system we have.

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.

That final point is a good one. I do think there is some difficulty of maneuvering for men, in some cases. But I don't think it's debilitating, intellectually or otherwise; that's probably where we differ.

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.

I don't think the left justifies it because I don't think they perceive it as a consciously orchestrated phenomenon. As a general cultural shift in response to historical circumstances, the rhetoric and sentiment breeds itself, so to speak. The underlying tendencies are just, in my opinion, even if the language manifests as hostile and divisive.

In the particular case we've been discussing--i.e. women in the workplace--I think that, generally speaking, most women are rational and level-headed about what they want (more rational than men in many instances). I think there are media that contribute to a growing sense of feminine animosity, but I don't think that most women in the workplace feel that way. I know this isn't a realm of experience for me, but even in academia I'm friends with numerous women who do teach courses in the gender studies department or women's history, etc. and they actively resist this idea that contemporary feminism is about degrading men. That's a limited perspective, but I still think it's important.

 

[CiG]

But I don't think it's debilitating, intellectually or otherwise; that's probably where we differ.

Strange view, but fair enough.

I think there are media that contribute to a growing sense of feminine animosity, but I don't think that most women in the workplace feel that way.

Well sure because the media focuses on corporate women who don't need no man/[insert sassy rhetoric here] while working class women at the same time do need men, are okay with admitting it and feel comfortable having unions with men because working class women understand that men need women too.

I know this isn't a realm of experience for me, but even in academia I'm friends with numerous women who do teach courses in the gender studies department or women's history, etc. and they actively resist this idea that contemporary feminism is about degrading men. That's a limited perspective, but I still think it's important.

Well sure, why would anyone want to admit that their ideology that they invest so much into has become a pretty disgusting and regressive influence in the west? This is akin to defending the alt-right by talking about how the race realists don't consider themselves to be racists.

And like with the alt-right having people who readily admit they're racists, feminism has many feminists who wear the badge of misandry with pride. It just is what it is.

 

[CiG]

Living in strange times right now, Jamie Kilstein is now opposed to SJWism, far-left progressivism, political correctness etc while remaining left-wing.

Pretty shocking considering how regressive he fucking was. His rants were notoriously epic and cringe.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The ones that suggest as much.

A search on men, women, and productivity in the workplace yields multiple results.

From the top 10 Google results: a Berkeley study finding productivity is approximately equal across genders; a 3M-sponsored productivity study using an artificial 10 minute test which finds minor differences between male and female engagement (with no reporting on statistical significance); a self-reported poll where women report themselves as more productive. Try again. Qualifications have never been as low-value as they are now with record numbers of people possessing undergrad and graduate degrees.

Actually, I don't think democracy holds politicians accountable; but voters are a part of democracy, and voters often don't hold politicians accountable.

I don't think I understand what poor whites want. I just think I know when certain policy decisions would yield net positive results for them. That doesn't mean I know what they want.

Which policy decisions are those? Whites benefit from military spending, from agriculture subsidies, from mining subsidies, etc. Republicans give them that.

No, I wouldn't say they perceive those things as handouts; but then, I was never talking about people who are actually working for a wage...

The point is that there are people who need help, and not because they're lazy or don't want to be productive. This can be done by getting them jobs, but until a job is available I don't see the problem with providing financial assistance. Refusing assistance because it's "communist" is just plain ignorance.

Well, poor unemployed whites make up a relatively small portion of those that voted for Trump relative to poor employed whites, so you're talking about a minor proportion voting against their perceived self-interests anyways.

 

[Dak]

Poor choice of words. I actually just meant the welfare of black people--not welfare programs that benefit black people.

Where in their day are they supposed to do this? Why should it be expected that a white machinist in Idaho, or a plumber in Kansas, who may never see a black person in a normal week/month/year, take time out of a grueling week to reflect on what he needs to do about the inner-city violence and poverty in Baltimore? We can, of course, extend that to concern-taking about any number of national and international ills. It is the privilege of the academic class to concern-take, and then further privilege to browbeat the appropriate lessers about the lack of it.

While I may not disagree, I think this has to do with more than just what kind of health care system we have.

Institutionalized medicine has never been about prevention, and prevention behaviors occur constantly, daily. Personal responsibility has to take over at some point. Even for our current care system, and the type of psych and research that I am involved in, "patient engagement" is absolutely paramount. Behavioral health is under appreciated still, but no matter how many PhDs and MDs go to work on it, they can't hold every patients hand 24 hours a day.

 

[CiG]

Black Lives Matter don't even give a shit about inner city intra-racial violence but you're the villain if you're a working class white guy in a fly-over state who doesn't consider a young black male's problems on the other side of the country when you vote.

Seems reasonable.

 

[Einherjar86]

From the top 10 Google results: a Berkeley study finding productivity is approximately equal across genders; a 3M-sponsored productivity study using an artificial 10 minute test which finds minor differences between male and female engagement (with no reporting on statistical significance); a self-reported poll where women report themselves as more productive. Try again. Qualifications have never been as low-value as they are now with record numbers of people possessing undergrad and graduate degrees.

Women have repeatedly demonstrated higher levels of patience and focus when performing tasks. In academia especially, studies have shown that women increase their productivity as they ascend the scholarly ranks, while men tend to even out.

In terms of the studies you mention above, one suggests that men overestimate their productivity while women underestimate theirs. Another suggests that in given ten-minute increments, women tend to put in 2.5 minutes, while men work closer to 2.

Women in the workplace often feel the need to work harder in order to prove themselves. I don't think that's too controversial, and it's not pulling the wool over our eyes or anything. They simply feel as though they have something to prove, whereas men tend to feel more confident in their professional positions.

Which policy decisions are those? Whites benefit from military spending, from agriculture subsidies, from mining subsidies, etc. Republicans give them that.

Actually, democrats support farm subsidies.

Well, poor unemployed whites make up a relatively small portion of those that voted for Trump relative to poor employed whites, so you're talking about a minor proportion voting against their perceived self-interests anyways.

That's true too. It's amazing that wealthy Trump voters have managed to convince poor and unemployed whites that their poverty is good for them... (ambiguity intended)

I don't think poor voters are stupid. I think they tend to let the fantasy of imminent solutions guide their vote.

 

[rms]

but until a job is available I don't see the problem with providing financial assistance. Refusing assistance because it's "communist" is just plain ignorance.

minorities who vote blue then are NOT voting in hteir own interests. The economic future of the dem party is to have such a high min wage that erodes jobs but that higher wage would then be taxed so as to provide welfare. Voting blue is a killer in the long term.

While I may not disagree, I think this has to do with more than just what kind of health care system we have.

This is ridiculous. The internet does more than enough as well as PBS programming to properly demonstrate what should and shouldn't be eaten. Our health care system is fucked because old people choose life support over hospice and people choose drugs over rehab. If people didn't make these selfish decisions, countries wouldn't have ridiculous decisions to make.

I think that, generally speaking, most women are rational and level-headed about what they want (more rational than men in many instances). I

I think it's asinine to assume the majority of any population is rational. Hell, the vast majority of all citizens thrive and waste too much of their own time on statistically insignificant circumstances. Women and minorities are now just the most vocal, outside of white repubs and ISIS

Women in the workplace often feel the need to work harder in order to prove themselves.

why do you put women on these pedestal? it's starting to be embarrassing. If we think about the workplace rationally, EVERYONE needs to work harder to prove themselves. It ain't easy for anyone

 

[Dak]

This is ridiculous. The internet does more than enough as well as PBS programming to properly demonstrate what should and shouldn't be eaten. Our health care system is fucked because old people choose life support over hospice and people choose drugs over rehab. If people didn't make these selfish decisions, countries wouldn't have ridiculous decisions to make.

Elder care is a growing portion of it, but looming issues and the list of leading and chronic issues are primarily based on poor diet and sedentary behavior. The body positivists are killing way more than anorexia ever harmed.

why do you put women on this* pedestal?

Why indeed.

 

[rms]

thanks fam my spelling is atrocious this morning

this palliative sociology course i took said majority of health care spending was for the elderly & near death so that was my basis for that comment (edit)

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Women have repeatedly demonstrated higher levels of patience and focus when performing tasks. In academia especially, studies have shown that women increase their productivity as they ascend the scholarly ranks, while men tend to even out.

Do you think patience/focus are universally in demand? That works great if you own a clothing factory in China and have a large work-force of women. Probably not sufficient or as important if you're in sales and need to convince your customers to buy something, or managing a project needing to juggle several different facets of work, or etc. I think it's hilarious that you're probably the type to talk about how women are just as good as men and how societal pressures hold them down, yet you characterize an entire gender as being comprised of inferior workers. Not that I deny inherent biological differences between men and women, of course.

In terms of the studies you mention above, one suggests that men overestimate their productivity while women underestimate theirs.

Where? You might have found a different result than me.

Another suggests that in given ten-minute increments, women tend to put in 2.5 minutes, while men work closer to 2.

As I said, with no information on statistical significance supplied, and using a proxy for work. If the 95% confidence interval for those time frames is between 50 seconds and 4 minutes, that 20% difference between men and women is minor. If men are more self-motivated/selfish than women as productivity studies seem to imply (which I could probably agree with), then they could also be as a group less reliable to put motivation in when taking a 10 minute test for a free Starbucks coupon or whatever.

Women in the workplace often feel the need to work harder in order to prove themselves. I don't think that's too controversial, and it's not pulling the wool over our eyes or anything. They simply feel as though they have something to prove, whereas men tend to feel more confident in their professional positions.

Sounds controversial to me. Are you saying that most women consciously think about their class struggle and identity when at work, to the extent that it becomes a primary motivator? Pretty sure most people, male or female, tend to dick off and chat about sports or Game of Thrones.

Actually, democrats support farm subsidies.

Well, both sides do to an extent, I'll admit. Carter ramped up Department of Agriculture funding more than any other president since him (not surprising considering his background), but most of the "pork barrel" spending that brings money to rural states is lobbied by the farming industry through their local, largely Republican, representatives. That is the kind of spending that benefits blue-collar white workers the most. Lately Democrats have turned the DoA's focus more away from the rural states and more towards urban planning and white-collar administration in the form of food stamps, health guidelines/regulations, etc.

That's true too. It's amazing that wealthy Trump voters have managed to convince poor and unemployed whites that their poverty is good for them... (ambiguity intended)

I don't think poor voters are stupid. I think they tend to let the fantasy of imminent solutions guide their vote.

So for the third time now, what solutions to Democrats or non-Trump Republicans promise? Most economic growth of the last few decades has been concentrated in the cities. The promise of infrastructure spending and manufacturing subsidies naturally has strong appeal to poorer working whites.

 

[Einherjar86]

minorities who vote blue then are NOT voting in hteir own interests. The economic future of the dem party is to have such a high min wage that erodes jobs but that higher wage would then be taxed so as to provide welfare. Voting blue is a killer in the long term.

Seems like voting red is a killer in the short term. Alas.

This is ridiculous. The internet does more than enough as well as PBS programming to properly demonstrate what should and shouldn't be eaten. Our health care system is fucked because old people choose life support over hospice and people choose drugs over rehab. If people didn't make these selfish decisions, countries wouldn't have ridiculous decisions to make.

Plenty of lifestyle choices have nothing to do with health care.

why do you put women on these pedestal? it's starting to be embarrassing. If we think about the workplace rationally, EVERYONE needs to work harder to prove themselves. It ain't easy for anyone

Sorry to embarrass you.

Why indeed.

I am suggesting that women feel the need to work harder in many corporate environments. Nothing about that is putting them on a pedestal.

 

[Einherjar86]

Do you think patience/focus are universally in demand? That works great if you own a clothing factory in China and have a large work-force of women. Probably not sufficient or as important if you're in sales and need to convince your customers to buy something, or managing a project needing to juggle several different facets of work, or etc. I think it's hilarious that you're probably the type to talk about how women are just as good as men and how societal pressures hold them down, yet you characterize an entire gender as being comprised of inferior workers. Not that I deny inherent biological differences between men and women, of course.



Where? You might have found a different result than me.



As I said, with no information on statistical significance supplied, and using a proxy for work. If the 95% confidence interval for those time frames is between 50 seconds and 4 minutes, that 20% difference between men and women is minor. If men are more self-motivated/selfish than women as productivity studies seem to imply (which I could probably agree with), then they could also be as a group less reliable to put motivation in when taking a 10 minute test for a free Starbucks coupon or whatever.



Sounds controversial to me. Are you saying that most women consciously think about their class struggle and identity when at work, to the extent that it becomes a primary motivator? Pretty sure most people, male or female, tend to dick off and chat about sports or Game of Thrones.



Well, both sides do to an extent, I'll admit. Carter ramped up Department of Agriculture funding more than any other president since him (not surprising considering his background), but most of the "pork barrel" spending that brings money to rural states is lobbied by the farming industry through their local, largely Republican, representatives. That is the kind of spending that benefits blue-collar white workers the most. Lately Democrats have turned the DoA's focus more away from the rural states and more towards urban planning and white-collar administration in the form of food stamps, health guidelines/regulations, etc.



So for the third time now, what solutions to Democrats or non-Trump Republicans promise? Most economic growth of the last few decades has been concentrated in the cities. The promise of infrastructure spending and manufacturing subsidies naturally has strong appeal to poorer working whites.

I can’t respond to all this now, on the road and on my phone. Try to tomorrow.

 

[EternalMetal]

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.

I think it is presumptuous of you to automatically jump to a scenario on which a more qualified woman gets denied over a less qualified man for a job. What I am talking about is that the threat of losing an employee for a couple months for some types of employers (specifically small business) is the equivalent of training an employee that does not work out. It is a real risk, regardless of how much you want to extol the work ethic of women.

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.

Cop-out response. You are basically discriminating against these people as a whole, claiming they are too stupid to know what is good for them so therefore their opinions and concerns dont matter. There are ignorants in every voting block, but to just lambaste the entire rural lower-class as unintelligible is rather disingenuous.

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.

A large enough component to apparently vote in Donald Trump. What I was trying to say is now that identity politics have started going out of control, your average down-trodden poor white American now feels the need to fight for his rights. Of course white people are annoyed when they keep seeing minorities get advantages and handouts one after another year after year, while they are still struggling. There is only so much sympathy to be had for other races when giving them opportunity stymies your own.

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.

People should want to scoff at getting handouts if they are able to work to support themselves. The logic follows as more handouts = more taxes for those of us who are working. If more people would do their best to find work and support themselves, then taxes should go down. While this view is a tad short-sighted, it is still an aspect of taxation, and taking care of yourself financially should be the #1 goal of anybody who isnt financially affluent already.

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.

lmao, of course they arent. White working class people are struggling to think of themselves and their family. Do you think working-class blacks are thinking about poor white's welfare? Only when you can care for yourself and your family will you truly be able to care about others.

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.

Could you elaborate on your point here? Health insurance, in a big sense, is to help pay for health emergencies that you least expect to happen. What happens if you get cancer, get in a car accident, or develop some otherwise unforeseen health issue? You are clearly speaking from the perspective of a relatively healthy individual who is under 40.

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.

My point is that identity politics have entirely seized the realm of political discussion, not that it is a particularly new phenomenon. As for your accusation of myopic concerns, how far back should people be analyzing political situations for you to be satisfied? Progressives have been pushing progressive politics since probably the 1960's, and much progress has actually been made. But when should we actually expect there to be results? How much legislation should we add to facilitate this change?

Imo the biggest problem this country currently faces is black/minority hate for white privilege. Maybe you agree with me? All of the progress this country has made towards racial equality seems to be ignored, and the racial divide seems stronger than it has in probably 20 years.

 

[Dak]

Could you elaborate on your point here? Health insurance, in a big sense, is to help pay for health emergencies that you least expect to happen. What happens if you get cancer, get in a car accident, or develop some otherwise unforeseen health issue? You are clearly speaking from the perspective of a relatively healthy individual who is under 40.

I agree that that insurance as a theoretical and useful concept is for emergencies that will definitely occur to a percentage of the population but it is relatively indeterminable where/to whom it will occur. Health insurance has not operated in this way for some time now. Health insurance premiums are not based on individual vs population risk, but rather funding the health care system as it attempts the impossible: keeping the increasingly sickly as well as elderly indefinitely alive.

I am suggesting that women feel the need to work harder in many corporate environments. Nothing about that is putting them on a pedestal.

I imagine what rms was referring to (as was I) was your "more rational" evaluation.

 

[no country for old wainds]

My point is that identity politics have entirely seized the realm of political discussion, not that it is a particularly new phenomenon. As for your accusation of myopic concerns, how far back should people be analyzing political situations for you to be satisfied? Progressives have been pushing progressive politics since probably the 1960's, and much progress has actually been made. But when should we actually expect there to be results? How much legislation should we add to facilitate this change?

Imo the biggest problem this country currently faces is black/minority hate for white privilege. Maybe you agree with me? All of the progress this country has made towards racial equality seems to be ignored, and the racial divide seems stronger than it has in probably 20 years.

the question of which history should be taught (and what should be taught in general) is essentially the conservative vs. liberal debate in microcosm: which aspects of the traditional western canon should remain compulsory, how far should we go in denying the authority of that canon? the answer is somewhere in the middle of course, but institutions of education have veered way too far toward the latter by this point, i'd like to see it brought back to somewhere near the centre. i'm not from the US so my experience won't match yours, but i stopped doing history in school around the age of 12/13 because i was allowed to drop it in favour of... german i think? i never got to the point of considering how said history relates to the present, it was more or less a cursory facts dump and then most of us were done. as someone who's held some truly nonsensical viewpoints myself over the years i can understand why so many people are being unquestioningly, hysterically indoctrinated into these dogmatic views of the world - i think my own worldview would've been a lot more balanced and structured if there'd been a stronger and lengthier core syllabus before i was allowed to branch out into whatever niche i preferred, so i'm assuming the same is true for many other people as well.

i suspect the problem you identify is also a symptom of this overarching issue; this resentment you speak of (which i'm sure is always there in some form in any hierarchical society, but can actually be productive if channelled the right way?) is being stoked up and twisted in different directions by ideological extremists on both sides who straight up aren't educated enough on the reasons or consequences of their own politics nor that of their opponents.

 

[Dak]

- i think my own worldview would've been a lot more balanced and structured if there'd been a stronger and lengthier core syllabus before i was allowed to branch out into whatever niche i preferred, so i'm assuming the same is true for many other people as well.

You mean indoctrinated in white patriarchal means of oppression.

 

[CiG]

Women also take much more time off (holidays/sick days) compared to men, so this productivity gap being described here seems to even itself out and perhaps even tilts in favour of male employees.

I think it is presumptuous of you to automatically jump to a scenario on which a more qualified woman gets denied over a less qualified man for a job. What I am talking about is that the threat of losing an employee for a couple months for some types of employers (specifically small business) is the equivalent of training an employee that does not work out. It is a real risk, regardless of how much you want to extol the work ethic of women.

It's corporation-centric thinking imo.
Almost nothing the progressive left offer as a "solution" to "inequality" in the workplace can be applied to any small-to-medium sized business without negatively impacting said businesses.