Originally Posted by malna
fits the bill for you...
This thread is where
@InvisibleJim
The way I see it, one of the things it comes down to is the estimation of trickle-down economics. I take it you're strongly against. For the most part, I'm willing to agree but I don't appreciate the idea of strictly abiding to it as I don't perceive the invisible hand of the market as panacea, some sort of mysterious creature that somehow holds the right answer to any given situation and miraculously cures economical problems on every level.
You say that "the idea that 'work' should be changed to be socially supportive rather than productivity first is ethically questionable", whereas I say that not taking providing comfortable and safe working conditions into account is downright ethically wrong, see quite recently the collapse of agarment factory in Bangladesh. This is an extreme example, nevertheless it serves to show how the invisible hand of the market is far from divine intervention; it is a blind mechanism, not unlike evolution: in a long run it tends to improve thins but that takes time, victims and plenty unsuccessful experiments. There are many less drastic examples in Western countries of how this singular focus on productivity backfires. I could come up with a few from my own backyard.
It is also true that I don't evaluate people by their utility, I'm probably as far from that kind of thinking as you can get, so this could be the other thing our differences source from. I see work more as means to an end, sometimes a fulfilling activity in itself, to benefit others, at that. Anyway, a person should always monitor how their current employment serves their purposes – in terms of finance, self-development, satisfaction from work results, comfort, making connections – all of that matters. This said, there's also another end of this, the employer's best interest, and I do expect them to prioritize differently. Partly, it will always be a process of running-inbetween both parties. But in my experience, I find it works best for everyone involved when the employer and the management make effort to create an environment and a work system that suits everyone just fine. It's in their interest as well, really.
I'm not opposed to what you call coddling either. People are complex creatures. If you carelessly throw a talent into machinery, it may not even meet standards. Put it in the right place and it will improve the whole system. There are people extra-ordinarily gifted while it's balanced with flaws. Some of them struggle to find a place in life or they get stuck in work they're ridiculously overqualified for. Who benefits from that?
My friend just terminated a job in a company which employed mostly women. It was doing quite well until new management came and decided to bring in more discipline and motivation, just on principle. It didn't go well for anybody.
I think the current production management and the idea of what works best, in many places still fits men's traits better, just by aftermath. There are some jobs where highly competitive and aggressive characteristics, willingness to take risks etc find their place. That's for sure. But it's high time that employers notice when it's completely redundant, or in some cases nothing short of destructive.
I violently dislike writing essays like this, more so in English. Verily, opinions are like assholes...
I call myself batyote and I fight crime at night.
"Productivity" (of a woker) is just price/time required to create the product, barring some capital cost and remuneration. So if I need 1.7 time for doing everything in a perfectly secure fashion but I can sell the product for double the price, there is no productivity loss, actually a productivity gain.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Although a suitably balanced and reasoned viewpoint it is based on the theory rather than practice. Workplaces have evolved beyond in richer countried to be more competitve and as a consequence peoples lifes are richer, the surplus goes to those who can't keep up. Remove the competitve drive and the surplus dries up.
This competition is to the benefit of both employees and employers; strong employees demand minimum safe conditions and employers are rewarded through higher margins.
As a consequence the most dangerous industries (petrochemical, refining, pharmaceutical) and the most risky have floated towards the most competitive cultures. The western economies have spent about 60 years outsourcing the less risky jobs (basic manufacturing, raw material processing) to less competitive locations.
The poor working conditions in these countries are most often caused by their cultures societal compliance (bangladesh is a good example) where 'questioning' the safety of the buildings earned 1 or 2 people the sack.
So I don't agree with your argument: everyone should want competent personnel who work together to deliver a productive and safe environment; lowering standards just to provide jobs for those that can't perform is a socialist theory disaster in practice.
I don't really think that's a fair way to discuss the topic, but I have done everything from temporary wage kitchen cleaner, through call centres to petrol pumps and now I'm a manager and engineer for developing oil fields.
Work is a muscle; exercise it.
It's interesting how you think so little of them but you watched a lot of their interviews. I'm wondering whether you specifically aim for feminist porn stars or were you just going through all these interesting porn star interviews and then these "bimbo" feminists show up. I was also very curious of what were you expecting to learn from a feminist who is "too fucking busy sniffing her pussy" and "a fucking joke". That is, assuming you were watching it to learn something because other two conceivable options are watching for the hate and/or arousal.
I was curious since you didn't seem like the sort of person who'd be interested in what porn stars think about but I didn't realize that your motives for watching porn star interviews were so personal. I'm sorry, I will now 'fuck off', as they say.
Last edited by Aquagraph; 06-21-2013 at 03:38 PM. Reason: I added some speculation.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
First off, I don't fucking hate porn stars, I am just very hard on them. What they do is fucked up for reasons listed. But there is a deeper side to them which I can empathize with, the fucked up stories that most of them have. That still doesnt change my attitude toward their fucking profession.
Now, I watched the interviews, and I watch things like that, because I want to understand that darker hidden side. I have a personal fascination with the obscene / deranged, with understanding it. I like getting closer to depravity... feeling the pain within people that they're hiding... seeing the truth. Seeing through people. It feels like I'm getting closer to something true and real. I want to understand what really motivates. Essentially I just want to know what people really are, behind the masks that they are always wearing. Maybe I am also understanding myself in the process.
As for you, you're full of assumptions. I sensed your predatory motive from the start... now you've revealed it. That's why I told you to fuck off and I meant it. You put alot of effort into portraying yourself as the good guy. What bullshit.
I liked the second part of your post. Such perfect phrasing for reframing your original intentions. Manipulative little twit..
God you're like a fucking parasite that's latched onto me.
Last edited by rat1; 06-22-2013 at 04:22 PM. Reason: language
And here you go, "jumping through my little hoops", as you put it. Thank you for your answer.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
You wrote out a long reply and actually tried ... That's all I want to see is some effort.
There wasnt any effort in that post there though... I don't know why you're even bothering responding. I don't know what your point is.
Your post just seems like a victim ploy. I like how you selectively quote me to make yourself seem more like the victim. And then pretend like all along you were just looking for is some factual answer, playing it cool and innocent.
So transparent...
Lmao.
Last edited by rat1; 06-22-2013 at 04:23 PM.
You wrote.
Victim as it gets.
I'd say learn the difference between cause and effect, but you aren't capable.
Yup, crazie rat is going to teach you research but not earn any monies idealistically.
Agreed.
I'll humor you, William. I've made it priority when searching for job to not take on hard/tough work. Doctor's orders - I'm a delicate flower. Extremely so.
I call myself batyote and I fight crime at night.
(I still fight crime at night.)
I call myself batyote and I fight crime at night.
You can see now how I strike terror into the hearts of the wicked.
I call myself batyote and I fight crime at night.
Careful now.
I'm Scottish.
Ignoring the thread, I'm just going to say that I'm for gender equality and such things. As such I would say that I'm a feminist and the many things that they do are quite justified. My actual relationship with feminism is a lot more awkward though.
I consider the phrase. "We don't need feminism because women in some 3rd world country to be so much worse." as a confession that things are still fucked up for women in the "first world". That and I always consider "well someone always has it worse than you so stop bitching" as a phrase that tells me that they are dismissive assholes who turns down others out of spitefulness and laziness.
Phelgmatic-Jewish-Communist-Islamic-Transethnic-Asexual-National Socialist
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
