An Interesting Take on BLM

[Ashock]

"The gender gap in hourly compensation would vanish if firms did not have a financial incentive to pay employees working 80 hours a week more than twice what they would receive for 40-hour weeks."

This has nothing to do with gender. It has everything to do with who works more and harder. If you want to eliminate 1.5x-2x pay for overtime, talk to the unions first and see if you leave the room alive. Aside from that, I actually agree with the fact that in certain (not all, mind you) situations, you really SHOULD get 1.5x or more for working overtime. Now, if you work for the government or are in a large union, then often enough this rule gets taken advantage of. However, sometimes people do need to work that many hours and they should be rewarded for it.

The main issue with the so-called gender gap's so-called data is that it does not take professions under consideration and is thereby completely irrelevant and misleading. It is exactly like compairing apples to oranges.

As far as agenda. It does not matter if she has an agenda or hasn't. She is stating facts. Facts which completely destroy the gender so-called gap. People might have agendas. Facts do not.

[FireIceTalon]

It has everything to do with who works more and harder.

So, if we follow this to its logical conclusion....men work harder than women, according to you. Not only are you a chauvinist and sexist scumbag extraordinaire, but you do a terrible job of trying to hide the fact. SMH.

Kandrathe's theory that women are paid less for taking time off to have children just lends itself to the fact, or is just a nicer way of saying, that the proletarian family is the necessary economic unit to the reproduction of capitalist social relations, and therefore women are obliged to fulfill the wife/mother role in order to ensure the system has a steady supply of labor power. It is just another of capitalism's contradictions: The bourgeois needs women for the reproductive role to produce the next generation of workers so capitalist society can continue, and yet, because many women cannot work (or can only do limited kinds or amounts of work) during much of their pregnancy, this means capitalists will be unable to extract the same amount of profit from them. These two things are not compatible, and it is this contradictory premise in which the oppression and discrimination of women in capitalist society is structured upon (including paying them less); in conjunction with male privilege that have been carried over from prior systems of class oppression. Then, the capitalists can just say men work harder as an ideological backdrop to justify paying women less. The strange thing is, by reproducing the next generation of wage slaves, women are in a sense, producing a very important form of value for the capitalist - yet don't even want to pay them for THAT. That's because they cannot directly make a profit off that child until he or she is of age to enter the workforce, and therefore pregnancy and childbirth are treated/viewed as only a necessity (but viewed by the capitalist as burdensome to profit, at least in the short-term) for producing the next generation of cogs in the machine - and nothing more - to eventually be disposed of when they can no longer generate enough profit.

[Ashock]

Nuked for no-content flaming

[FireIceTalon]

Nuked for no-content flaming

[Ashock]

Bolty, so we understand one another, I do not take comments like this:

"So, if we follow this to its logical conclusion....men work harder than women, according to you. Not only are you a chauvinist and sexist scumbag extraordinaire, but you do a terrible job of trying to hide the fact. SMH." without retaliation of some type.

Do you have an explanation as to why you don't sensor this before I retaliate? Perhaps you think that calling someone a "sexist scumbag" is an acceptable opening statement?

[FireIceTalon]

An openly racist and sexist troll is crying about being called a scumbag. If the shoe fits, wear it. Fascie tears are always a pleasure to see, keep em' coming!

Pretty soon, you fascies will have MUCH more to worry about than simply being called names.

[Ashock]

An openly racist and sexist troll is crying about being called a scumbag. Fascie tears are always a pleasure to see, keep em' coming!

Interestingly enough, as someone who constantly tries to shut down and attack the opinions of someone who has different views on most issues, you are the real fascist. That's what they were known for. You are exactly like the so-called people that shut down the Ann Coulter and also Milo Viannopoulos' speech at Berkeley. No tolerance for differing opinions.

Anyway Bolty, I'm waiting for your response. I can also provide numerous other examples of open insults toward me and a certain other person in here. If you are running a forum that is this biased, then please say so.

Perhaps you are of the "turn the other cheek" faction and of the opinion that retaliation is as bad as instigation. Well, I'm not. Let me know.

[FireIceTalon]

An openly racist and sexist troll is crying about being called a scumbag. Fascie tears are always a pleasure to see, keep em' coming!

Interestingly enough, as someone who constantly tries to shut down and attack the opinions of someone who has different views on most issues, you are the real fascist. That's what they were known for. You are exactly like the so-called people that shut down the Ann Coulter and also Milo Viannopoulos' speech at Berkeley. No tolerance for differing opinions.

Anyway Bolty, I'm waiting for your response. I can also provide numerous other examples of open insults toward me and a certain other person in here. If you are running a forum that is this biased, then please say so.

Perhaps you are of the "turn the other cheek" faction and of the opinion that retaliation is as bad as instigation. Well, I'm not. Let me know.

So let me this straight. Someone who calls you out for your bigoted and discriminatory views (which they are, regardless of how much you try to deny it) is somehow the fascist?? Gee, how original. No, I will not let you turn it around on those who call you out to shield yourself from blame. You WILL take responsibility for what you say. You right-wingers always bitch and moan about people not taking personal responsibility over their choices, yet when it comes time for YOU to do so, you think you are somehow magically exempt. Wrong, you are not exempt!

You're damn fucking right that us "lefties" have no tolerance for your racist, sexist, homophobic, and classist views. No decent human being does, nor should they. Fascists should not and do not deserve any platform on which to spread their violent, hateful and destructive tripe - because such views have absolutely no place in any decent human society.

[Lissa]

And what makes you think that it is any less the case now, relative to a previous time? What material evidence is there to support that the 'war on drugs' (a euphemism for the war on minorities) is not still on-going today?

I think in the Nixon era, they spent so much time demonizing drugs, that no administration can successfully curtail the vitriol against drugs without saying they were lying (or at least wrong) from the very get go, and for any politician, that is a hard pill to swallow because it usually means political suicide by showing weakness. I think the ones who know the truth are afraid to speak the truth, and the ones who back the war on drugs are just plain ignorant and subscribe to the hyperbolic rhetoric.

I think you need to go waaaaaaaaay back into history to see where demonizing drugs came from (hint, it goes at least back to the mid-late 19th century). Originally it started in the US just after the rail road building craze when Chinese workers brought opium and the like to the US and it started being used by more than just the Chinese workers. As the usage spread throughout the US populous (all races were effected), the government stepped in and started cracking down on the minorities first (whites were not being arrested and jailed for drug use). This did eventually change over time, but it wasn't until the prohibition era when everyone was being arrested (so whites were allowed to use drugs for around 50 years where minorities were being arrested for about 40 of those years).

Now, more recently, some state governments and DC (Feds are still being blind to the tax bonanza available if some drugs were legailzed) have started to legalize marijuana. Slowly the politicians are starting to see the value of legalizing some drugs because of the taxes they can get. IMO, the best thing to do would be to legalize drugs, tax them heavily (like what happens with cigarettes, cigars, and alcohol), set very stringent under influence laws, heavily educate on the effects of the drugs, make addiction counselling more available, and several things would change. The govenrment would have a new tax resource, you'd have less violent crime involved in the drug trade, and a the number of people put in prison would drop as well (which lowers costs there as well).

[kandrathe]

I think you need to go waaaaaaaaay back into history to see where demonizing drugs came from (hint, it goes at least back to the mid-late 19th century). Originally it started in the US just after the rail road building craze when Chinese workers brought opium and the like to the US and it started being used by more than just the Chinese workers. As the usage spread throughout the US populous (all races were effected), the government stepped in and started cracking down on the minorities first (whites were not being arrested and jailed for drug use). This did eventually change over time, but it wasn't until the prohibition era when everyone was being arrested (so whites were allowed to use drugs for around 50 years where minorities were being arrested for about 40 of those years).

Now, more recently, some state governments and DC (Feds are still being blind to the tax bonanza available if some drugs were legailzed) have started to legalize marijuana. Slowly the politicians are starting to see the value of legalizing some drugs because of the taxes they can get. IMO, the best thing to do would be to legalize drugs, tax them heavily (like what happens with cigarettes, cigars, and alcohol), set very stringent under influence laws, heavily educate on the effects of the drugs, make addiction counselling more available, and several things would change. The govenrment would have a new tax resource, you'd have less violent crime involved in the drug trade, and a the number of people put in prison would drop as well (which lowers costs there as well).

Also, we need to have a comorbidity social service path for addiction, mental health and homelessness. Most shelter issues in the USA rejecting homeless, other than being full, is they don't allow users or high people in shelters. Also, they need free secure storage areas to keep your stuff. Once the addicts get sober, you can identify the ones with mental illnesses. I've heard of some places that help people with their meds.

I don't know how it is now. I was homeless for awhile when I was 19, like in the early 80's. But, being a country boy, I was pretty used to outdoor living and survival. I found a small woodland about a mile from my work (also home to a rogue marijuana farm), and met many interesting people. I could shower at work.

I like how Portugal is moving on legalizing and keeping addiction rates lower.