I’m so sick of seeing those “you’re not a bad person because you’re part of a privileged group” coddling posts, because no, you may not be a bad person just for being part of a privileged group but you ARE kind of a shitty person if you feel the need to prioritize you and your precious feelings over taking responsibility and doing your part in tearing down the system that lets you be privileged.
seriously, $15/hour is barely a fucking living wage, especially if you live in a major metropolitan area. I can’t even believe that the idea of $15 a fucking hour for physical labor scandalizes some people.
I’ve worked a lot of food jobs, but large restaurant jobs are the fucking worst. I used…
The standard for “deserve” here is based on arbitrary whim. Of course, arbitrary whims make for bad policy. A dishwasher is easily replaceable, requires no skill, or experience, or education, or even the most basic form of competence. Optimal public policy must concern itself with the good of society as a whole, which is served by economic freedom, rather than attempting to ensure every single individual gets to live on easy street.
That was a breathtaking paragraph of absolutely nothing. Like a sculpture of a buttplug hewn entirely from mirengue.
Admire it. Linger over the lacy frippery of the mirengue buttplug: the confusion of what “arbitray whims” means, as though a basic standard of living is made entirely of candy floss and dreams, not subject to a minimum wage commensurate with gains in productivity and the disparity between the cost of living and how the current minimum wage is a joke. The assertion that being “replaceable” makes a worker unworthy of a decent paycheck, as though only unskilled laborers are replaceable. The use of “economic freedom” as a lofty buzzword that exists in a complete fucking vacuum, as though minimum-wage workers don’t deserve that same economic freedom.
If by “easy street” you mean “not crushed under the weight of poverty and with a way to find the exits,” then sure, you tacky monopoly-man turd, who doesn’t want to live on fucking easy street?
Do you know why you think every individual in society can escape poverty by fiat alone? Because economic freedom, the primary mode of human advancement, was so successful at advancing human society that it made such an arrangement appear possible. But government force born out of utopian inclination has long proven itself a poor imitation of what truly is optimal.
ohhhh, for chrissakes, he’s still going.
Raising the minimum wage is, in itself, not going to erase the systematic conditions that caused poverty in the first place, and nobody’s arguing that it’s a catch-all solution that’ll create ~*~UTOPIA,~*~ but that’s a lovely strawman you’ve constructed. It’s a fucking start, and it would directly and immediately improve millions of people’s living situations and provide an opportunity for a newly-invigorated working class to spend money buying goods and services that’ll boost the economy.
By “economic freedom,” I assume you mean “a completely laissez-faire economy run by the obscenely wealthy,” and if you think that’s an ideal living situation, you’ve got problems that aren’t gonna be solved by an argument on a blue website.
I hope you can afford to pay somebody enough to dislodge the stock, predictable answers from the textbook wedged unspeakably far up your asshole.
I think it’s inherently transphobic to cast cisgender men as trans women. It’s indicative that the filmmaker views their characters as men attempting to be women, rather than women attempting to be recognized as people. Fuck that. Fuck the “No transgender actors!” argument. Find some, you lazy fuck.
I’m not sure how many times I have to review this, but reverse racism/misandry/cis/heterophobia are not legitimate concepts because they perpetuate false equivalence and disregard the sociological context of racism/misogyny/homo/transphobia.
When you coin and actively use neologisms like reverse racism/misandry/cis/heterophobia, you insinuate that they are equivalent to acts of racism/misogyny/homo/transphobia—that microaggressions are equivalent to hate crime, erasure, systematic exploitation and a historical context relating to oppression. White folks in the US are not as risk of being detained or killed by local police forces for simply being white, white folks have not been subjugated to slums and shamed for said subjugation simply because they’re white, white communities have not been gentrified, etc. Nor are heterosexual or cis folk remotely at any sort of risk for presenting the way they do. If you equate “well queer ppl are mad at me for being cis and straight!” with oppression, you evidently don’t understand what oppression is.
When you mock a white, physically abled man for eating mayo, you hurt his feelings. When you mock a queer black woman for her gender expression, you become the reason why their marginalization is widely accepted. There is no equivalence between the two.
You can’t rely on textbook, dictionary definitions of oppression because socially charged words have sociological context—society alters words with time. We influence society through the actions of individuals, which is why subconscious categories of people exist to start with, it’s only natural: however, reciprocally, society influences you as an individual through its shared language and meanings that enable a person to take the role of the other, engage in social interaction, and reflect upon oneself as an object. Identity and language are key. There is always identity entwined with the definition of a word, “literally” means precisely, verbatim, word for word, however within any sort of discussion we evidently use literally, well, figuratively. How you share language alters your perception of words, and sociological concepts like psychology, emotion, oppression, etc. can never be accurate in accordance to a textbook definition because they’re based on perception.