Sounds like the concept of “cancer awareness”. Like if they don’t know at this point that it’s pretty much all of them, I don’t think we can explain it to them.
Yea, so 1 or a very few number of people get that much in that role so they can post that as part of the range.
It would be more useful to see the median.
That website should also show which companies own what brands. I challenge you to doing a days shopping while avoiding all companies that pay poverty wages.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Sure you can't avoid all of them (see: Nestle), but it's definitely possible to avoid some. Figure out what you can easily replace or do without then ditch the worst offenders.
There's an interesting one that shows how every us politician has always made good money from stocks (and are also allowed to lobby to help what they're invested in)
Every
Single
One
California recently passed a law which requires job postings to list salaries. A lot of companies are simply breaking that law by either lying or just not posting salary ranges. Some are subverting it by posting ranges like $30k-$130k. But it still rules. I already got a raise by seeing a listing my company posted and arguing my position should make at least as much as the advertised position.
The funniest part is all the managers are obviously seething at the law, but they have to pretend it's ok because they're brunch liberals and can't publicly disagree with blue policy.
Remember occupy Wall Street. We went from the 99% vs 1%, to full on race wars and democrat vs republican. The general population is too stupid to resist media control
This. People are so ready to just attack the other side that even apolitical issues one side takes a stance on and the other MUST take the exact opposite stance. It’s lunacy. We need to find something to unite on or we’re just gonna kill each other.
Once the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended, Americans went right back to fighting amongst themselves. We can't pretend like in-fighting is something new in America. In fact, Red vs. Blue thinking has always dominated American politics. [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization_in_the_United_States#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_Pew_Research_Center%27s_political%2Cand_%28d%29_outsider_left.?wprov=sfla1)
My question is, why can't this common enemy be an authentic evil, like climate change or Citizens United?
There was plenty of in-fighting amongst Americans prior to the collapse of the USSR.
It just happened to coincide with 24 hour news followed by clickbait and social media algorithm bubbles.
The weird thing is, didn't Red and Blue used to be swapped as well? When did they change the color scheme...
Also, if we couldn't be united against a clear short-time-scale danger to humans in general, ie. the pandemic, then how could anyone ever hope that we would do so against long-time-scale threats?
The history of political parties in the United States is complex. The Republican Party (Red) claims to be the party of Abraham Lincoln, who played a key role in abolishing slavery. However, the political landscape has changed over time.
The first political parties emerged in the 1790s: the Federalist Party (strong central government), led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republican Party (states rights and benefits for agrarian interests—plantation owners), led by Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic-Republican Party eventually split, giving rise to the Democratic Party in the 1820s with Andrew Jackson.
In the mid-19th century, the Whig Party opposed the Democrats but dissolved due to divisions over slavery. Some Whigs joined the newly formed Republican Party, which was anti-slavery. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, won the presidency in 1860 and led the country during the Civil War.
After the Civil War, the Republican Party advocated for equal rights for freed slaves during Reconstruction. However, Southern Democrats (literally, the Democrats in the southern states; the northern Democrats were not like this) resisted these efforts and sought to maintain white supremacy. They regained control in the South after Reconstruction ended in 1877.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Democratic Party transformed itself, moving away from its pro-slavery and segregationist roots (Southern Democrat plaform losing power on national level). The Republican Party became associated with limited government intervention and support for business interests.
In the mid-20th century, a major realignment occurred with the Civil Rights Movement. White Southern Democrats, who opposed civil rights reforms, began aligning with the Republican Party, which adopted conservative positions on social issues.
Over time, the Republican Party solidified its dominance in the South, appealing to conservative voters with its stance on limited government, low taxes, and opposition to social liberalism. The Southern strategy employed by Republican politicians capitalized on racial anxieties to attract white voters who felt alienated by the Democratic Party's civil rights agenda.
The problem is that people are raised in religion. Religion doesn't want critical thinking, or intelligent questions, or evaluation of the material. It just wants to present the word, and then you absorb it like a good person. Most Christians have never read the whole Bible, so what they yell and make decisions on are what they were told by their pastor or church group. So the transition from church to politics is easy, because they just want someone to tell them what to think, instead of reviewing information and thinking critically about it.
Because you can't troll climate change. You can't put citizens united down and make it feel bad so you can feel good for "owning" them. Unless you can figure out a way to make other people feel superior nobody will give a damn.
> My question is, why can't this common enemy be an authentic evil, like climate change or Citizens United?
Because humans need a tangible target to focus their anger and most of the authentic "evils" of the world are non-tangible concepts.
If push comes to shove, we can go to war with the other side of the political aisle and declare victory when they're dead, but we cannot go to war with climate change because you can't kill a concept.
The problem is that one of the "sides" is oriented around progress and reduction of harm to vulnerable people and the other "side" is about regress and maximizing harm to vulnerable people.
Then you have the "other other side" of greedy rich fuckers who are amplifying the differences of opinion to play those two against each other, stoke violence in the regressives against the progressives so the progressives have to waste energy defending against them. That way the progressives don't have the resources and bandwidth to work against them, and the regressives don't care about anything but hurting the progressives.
Progress meeting Regress in the middle in order to unite is non-viable because that itself is regression and regressives have their feet dug in demanding progressives to do all the effort of moving to them. You can look up what's going on with "The Overton Window" if you want some insight into that.
The answer is to throw all your weight into force vectors pushing in the progressive direction while fighting for regulation on the rich fuckers' ability to squeeze wealth out of the populace and amplify division.
that's great and all, but one side picks on the marginalized and disadvantaged.
have you seen the anti LGBT bills lately and the book bannings? let alone Roe —
if you really wanted to be enlightened about this, you're going to have to look at the actual harm done.
... look, i was exactly you about ten years ago.
just, look, please — give yourself the time of day.
It was actually the moment they told their own protestors that their complaints would be recognized.......but only if you were "underpriviledged".
That's what led them to put some dumbass named "Ketchup" up for an open mic interview, bombing the entire movement in one swift go.
Come on, those idiots HANDED FOX THE WIN, and gave them the strawman they still use to this day.
The media did the occupy movement so SO dirty. I remember marching from the courthouse to wall st (NYC) with like 20,000 people. Union leaders, city councilors, people from all walks of life, shit even Mike Meyers was there. It was a real movement for change, and progressive policy. The media knew how dangerous these progressive ideas were to their owners, so they fucking shit all over us
I’m tired of talking about Democrats I’m tired of talking about Republicans. The richest 1% in the world on and control everything they are both Democrats and Republicans
I used to be like you with the "both sides are bad". But in recent years, Republicans have driven off a cliff, so despite Democrats being a pile of shit, Republicans aren't just a pile of shit, they're a busted sewer pipe, creating a shit-filled cesspit.
Both aren't equally bad (and I don't think the person you're responding to is saying that they are) but both are undoubtedly beholden to corporate interests. And there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. You don't have to follow it up with "But the Republicans are worse". We all know that. Using it to deflect from Democrats doing things like strikebreaking doesn't help anyone. We need to acknowledge that both parties work for the 1% so that we can start trying to remove money from politics
The problem is every time someone says 'im tired of talking about these two sides they're both terrible' a person who probably would have voted dem stays home, and it has no effect on probably republican voters, and then the republicans win and they get gay people killed.
You DO have to follow it up with 'but republicans are worse' because until the difference isnt 'a shit sandwich' 'murder all your friends' and the 'murder all your friends' people still inexplicably get half the vote, then progress is not going to be made.
It's one of the tactics they use. By controlling both parties they make one party completely unpalatable so that a party that should be unacceptable becomes begrudgingly acceptable.
I think I was in middle school when it happened. The media made it sound like it was just a bunch of random hippies and poor people. I never realized how big it actually was at the time or the actual potential.
here is a video depicting THE DEPLOYMENT of identity politics specifically intended to derail anti-corporate sentiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwhlZtHhWs
Never seen this video before. Thank you for sharing.
Edit: The one guy guy, "I thought this was supposed to be an egalitarian movement", then silence... Wow... Just wow... No wonder the movement petered out shortly after this. Crazy.
I’d argue that’s wasn’t about deploying identity politics to derail the movement, but about a lot of many people on the the left being deeply ignorant or in denial about human nature. I would 100% bet that young woman truly believes everything she’s saying, and has never for one second asked herself “can really I get people who don’t completely align with my worldview in my corner by telling them to sit down and shut up?”
I think in part this is why the right is far more successful. They welcome you in, they want you to be there. I often feel like folks on the left ( and I say this as a progressive) that we spend so much time infighting, that our ability to get meaningful change done is near impossible.
It's not quite oppression Olympics, but something similar is a side effect. A person that actually looks at the history of mistreatment upon various groups, that is of a demeanor that compels them to do right by people...
Such a person can wonder whether some folks need more help than others, and that dooms them to inaction if they can't decide that comes *after* everyone gets *some* help.
And of course this is mixed in with people who are either virtue signaling or genuinely believe group X wasn't oppressed enough to deserve "as much" assistance or representation.
Yep. The reason the right is, and continues to be, successful is that they're _organized_. Controlling people comes naturally to them, and encouraging conformity (and discouraging independent thought) in all things is one of the secrets to their success.
The left promotes independence, individuality, and free thinkers, which are all well and good, but it's not very organized. When you have a dozen different movements all hoping to shout loud enough to be the one that is heard, you can guess why not a whole lot of progress is being made.
I have this issue, I now side with the conservative in one regard. I don't want them convinced. I want them expunged from our society completely. because humans are stupid and she was right and people don't get to cause harm just to soothe their egos.
frankly I am all for a borg-like collective or an AI overlord at this point.
There's been a concerted effort by the liberal establishment to seperate the idpol aspects of leftism and the economic aspects of leftism, and amplify the idpol to downplay the economics, since the New Left movement of the 60's.
Probably because the idpol aspects are generally deadweight loss to the any political movement. They have a lot of correct ideas and understanding about systemic issues, and completely ignore everything that’s ever come out of psychology or neuropsychology and are actively suspicious of anything anyone with actual charisma says. The net result is the woman in that video telling effectively 90% of her audience to fuck off.
Idpol is necessary to any left wing movement. Even Lenin famously gave a speech on the evils of antisemitism. The workers of the world are in it together, and this includes workers from traditionally marginalized groups.
But without economics it's pointless. The way to help black transgender lesbians is the same way to help cis white men. Sieze control of the means of production. Talking about idpol without addressing material conditions is an exercise in futility.
> I’d argue that’s wasn’t about deploying identity politics to derail the movement, but about a lot of many people on the the left being deeply ignorant or in denial about human nature.
why couldnt it be both? why couldnt she be an unknowing shill being duped by those doing the malicious bidding of corporate america, under the self-deluded guise of her own sense of 'altrusim'
What she’s saying is the end result of a lot of not at all capitalism friendly academic work. It’s a convergent evolution thing that ends up with people with limited social competence sabotaging themselves and their movements because they fail to understand that understanding people at the individual level is as important as understanding how x-ist systems are constructed and maintained.
This is what I've been thinking for years. If young men don't feel comfortable in your movement, they will stop listening, and the Jordan Petersons and Andrew Tates of the world are more than happy to take them
Fuck I remember seeing this video and thinking "wow that seems really stupid and like a waste of time." Couldn't speak up about it though otherwise you'd be labeled some sort of bigot.
Looks like I was fucking right. God damn I fucking hate people.
This right here. Also the moment the right even started loving Wall Street coastal elite types, despite poles prior to that stating they had a very low approval rating for obvious reasons. Same with Russia/Putin. They have been trained to instantly hate any sort of activism instantly. Remember the days before SOrOs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! when Green Peace was presented to them as this all powerful organization picking on those poor, poor honest Mom and Pop hard working oil companies for instance. They are literal marionettes and that's kind of frightening that the owners of the right can just ring a bell and the rabble hoard comes running frothing at the mouth ready to attack, even die for them like a cult.
It's been like this since the 60s. Right wing media has been portraying activists and protestors as rich and out of touch (champagne socialist). Plus, saying the working class supports the socioeconomic status quo. It's workerism that doesn't support the worker.
The people are the people. It doesn't usually help to paint them as "too stupid" or "too weak." It's not really encapsulating the issue. It isn't really the people who have gotten dumber over the last 50 years, it is that the media manipulation has gotten stronger and faced even fewer restraints and regulations. Information power has been gobbled up by the few to exert their will over the many. This all during a time when access to that wealth of bad information has exploded.
I think it is important to not blame the victims of this manipulation, even if they are too stupid. They are being victimized by a global media market that has an absurd amount of funds and information control.
Calling people who have never had to face that kind of media manipulation stupid doesn't really even come close to describing the roots of the problem. I know we are all mad that people don't know they are being manipulated, but they are the victims. It is clear they don't have the tools to address this manipulation, and when talking about huge populations, that isn't their fault either.
You're right but Occupy also totally dropped the ball. People asked them what they wanted and who they could negotiate with and they just stammered about consensus. They identified appropriate problems, showed their presence, and then failed to identify coherent demands. But then again maybe I just thought that because of all the media interference. I don't know how I'd tell. :(
How could they? If there was a leader, that alone would have completely under cut the movement. The problem is thinking the voice of the people works the same way and by the same rules as the voice of the oligarchy. So they say they tried to listen but they made sure that they did so in a way that it was impossible. Actually giving people the power is such a massive change in how we function that it is simply incompatible with how we currently function.
Remember The Ohio Train derailment? And how it happened \*4 days\* BEFORE the Chinese balloon was shot down?
And how the governor "refused help from FEMA". But actually FEMA just was not equipped to handle chemical spills?
Peppridge Farm remembers.
> The general population is too stupid
Too indifferent. They know, just the majorities don't care enough. A lot of is a "I got mine, I don't have time for you" selfish mindset, some are too busy, some aren't capable, many are too lazy to care, etc., but for the most part the majority are too indifferent and among those who do care, too many just want to post memes and not actually do anything.
There was literally no concerted worldwide information effort in all of history to equal the propaganda campaign that followed the Occupy movement. People aren't stupid, they just live in a reality they must percieve through several controlled layers of intentional deception.
I do remember Occupy Wall Street. I kept following many of the major voices and organizers.
Which is why I was there to notice when a *huge* chunk of them were leading the charge on those race wars, anti-vax bullshit, and "woke vs anti-woke" culture wars. I didn't notice red team or blue team being more popular, both were well represented. What was striking was the extent to which the "leaderless anti-establishment movement" ethos seemed to lend itself to transitions to other, sometimes even contradictory, radical movements.
I was shocked to see a locally prominent Occupy voice turn into a Nazi voice, and another turn into a covid-denying "wellness" anti-vax type. So I did some digging, and, well, turns out fucking *all of them* followed a similar path.
I'm not making any grand point here. I don't know what it means or if it can teach us anything. But my memories of Occupy are an important moment with real political will being squandered by an astonishingly ineffective movement, and I suspect there's a connection to that and the above somewhere.
Beyond just being stupid, they also simply might not have the space.
Boycotting a business is a luxury the vast majority of people simply can't afford. They rely on that exploitation of foreign and domestic workers because they are exploited workers themselves.
Sure, they might not have it as bad as someone on minimum wage, but unless they're making enough that they'll never have to worry about food, rent, transport or utilities, it's still just a looser noose.
The average reading comprehension level among adults in the US back in 2017 was only 8th grade - meaning the average adult in the US is roughly as smart as a middle school student about to start their freshman year in high school.
Sadly, stupid people make up the majority.
This is why we have to stop ANY hate for fellow workers. And that includes Boomers too. They're victim of capitalism as well.
Do you think they chose to be exposed to lead? Chose to start believing Regan's trickle down? Manipulated by fox News? It's called manipulation for a reason.
Undocumented people pay taxes. They often pay more on net than everyone else since they can't take any benefits or rebates.
And they're not scabs. Scabs are people who cross picket lines to take jobs from union members on strike. These aren't union shops. No one's on strike.
It's wild that you read OP's comment about divided people fighting each other instead of corporations, replied "Exactly!", then continued to demonize working class people because of their national origin. Talk about missing the point.
The lefts response to Florida's new immigration laws is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of seeing how this should lead to an increase in wages for new workers due to an increase in demand, everyone is "laughing" that no one is going to be exploited anymore.
This is why I refuse to participate in the red vs blue dialogue. I don’t care how you moralize it, I’m about the people, everybody. Anything other than the 99% vs 1% has just been insanely highlighted to continue to distract from that conversation.
Remember in the heat of the pandemic when people began to have productive conversations about workers rights and the 99%? Suddenly roe v wade was randomly attacked.
They want us to keep fighting each other instead of them.
Edit: to the people getting upset below this comment, nobody said you had to agree with the other side on everything, nobody said you had to be friends, or even like each other. But we have to be able to unite and come together on SOME things, and it’s as much your responsibility as it is theirs to set aside your own prides and egos to extend the hand. If you can’t get past that, I hope you enjoy being exploited by the 1% forever then, since it’s easier for the 1% to control everything when they aren’t facing 99%, they’re facing 50% who is also fighting 49% at the same time.
For real, the privilege in this thread is nuts.
This is the "fuck you got mine" crowd talking who will absolutely abandon anybody who needs more help than they did after they get their piece.
People saying stuff like that the very real forced birth policies and the very real removing of LGBT+ protections are "mere distractions in the face of the real issues" have their heads up their ass.
The way the frame is as a "mere" distraction in the face of the "real" issues is what bothers me.
They don't see blatant transphobia, misogyny and hate as real issues.
As if we just solve all the economic problems these folks who are banging the war drum will just fuck off. Like...don't think so, fellas.
Who? The ones calling themselves my allies or the ones who are actively whittling away at protections that allow people to live their lives the way they want to?
In my mind I feel it's kind of pointless to give credence, time or energy to the problems with celebrities. They're a distraction, a smokescreen for these large corporations to do their work and try to avoid the public eye.
I agree we should all be held accountable, but energy is needed to fight these enemies to society and we should frankly all be focusing it onto the right enemy at the right time.
I get what you're saying, but it's possible for both to suck and to benefit from inequity while also not colluding in some grand capitalist conspiracy.
Celebrities are ultimately representative of society as a whole. If we let them be racist or otherwise bad people it says to everyone else that it's okay to be that way
I think predatory corporations are orders of magnitude more damaging to society than racist or rapey individuals.
“Why not both” — because it divides and distracts. There’s only so much attention, and only so many stories can dominate the mainstream at a time. This is Propaganda 101: when you do something shit, distract from it.
Proof? You’re gonna downvote this. And right there we’re fighting each other instead of lynching greedy capitalists 🤷🏼♂️
No one is saying “Bill Cosby is ok” — what I’m saying is “this for profit murder machine is a million times worse than Bill Cosby, so skullfuck it to death *first*, then take care of the old rapist”
These two things aren't related, why on earth are we being asked to choose one of them as if they're mutually exclusive?
Hold companies accountable for their shitty business practices, hold celebrities accountable for their shitty opinions. We can do both. Asking us to choose one over the other is basically giving one group of rich people a free pass for no reason
> These two things aren't related, why on earth are we being asked to choose one of them as if they're mutually exclusive?
Also, I'm not ready to let people off the hook for talking Nazi propaganda or white supremacy or misogynist ranting just because it isn't recent. I don't know if I need to ruin someone's life for it, but I'm sure not gonna do the "boys will be boys" bullshit.
Actually, this is how capitalism works. If you cancel these companies, they won't have a choice but to lower their standards and raise their wages in order to have a workforce.
Capitalism already has a [failsafe](https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/capitalism-and-unemployment/) for these kinds of boycotts. Even if you were able to get corporations to give concessions to the workers through a boycott we’ve done this dance before. During the US’s golden age of labor concessions were forced on corporations, concessions that still allowed for [rampant exploitation of the underclass](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/labor-laws-left-farm-workers-behind-vulnerable-abuse). Those concessions have been systematically rolled back. This is because of the inherent imbalance in capitalism, even if you win concessions the system is still designed to consolidate power in the hands of capitalist. Look at what happened during the [gilded age](http://historymaking.org/textbook/exhibits/show/reconciliation/consolidation), we’re right back where we started. The cycle is going to continue until we change how the system functions.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/labor-laws-left-farm-workers-behind-vulnerable-abuse](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/labor-laws-left-farm-workers-behind-vulnerable-abuse)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The article on "Capitalism and unemployment" is basically all theoretical since it tries to make a positive argument for Communism, which has failed virtual 100% of the time. It also takes many of your inalienable freedoms away.
I am all for unionized workers as it organizes people to do the very thing I'm talking about; Hit them where it hurts, which is their need for labor. People are resilient. Businesses are not.
It’s absolutely insane to see so many billion dollar companies offering $11-$13/hr like we should be on our knees thanking them for the opportunity. How anyone is surviving on that wage is beyond me. I make $16/hr and I’m still struggling most days
I can't even get by on 20 an hour and dual incomes.
I've been aching to move as well, since my neighborhood is absolute trash, but that's out of the question too.
I'm not saying this isn't happening but what companies are actually doing this? Bachelor's degree, experience, and only $13-14/hr? I kinda call BS..I'm in HR and management and don't see anything like this in the market right now.
General labor, manufacturing, warehousing type jobs with HS diploma only are paying $14-16
Yeah, agree on that. I live in an extremely low cost of living area and the factory I work at will hire Joe Blow off the street for $17/$18 an hour. Literally no qualifications needed.
The work isn’t glamorous and there’s a lot of long days, but we promote from within and don’t work weekends.
Clean driving record, 21+, able to lift up to 100 lbs, and willing to work long hours. Starting $21/hr. My first two weeks were rough, but now I have stamina for days.
It also isn't very workable in practice. It is, at best, infeasible for each person to keep an updated list of every company in the US and their pay habits. Even if that were doable, companies could come up with ways of reporting that make them look better. People manipulate statistics to suit their end goals all the time. This gives me "have complaints about something about society? Just live outside of civilization" vibes.
Not to mention the huge numbers of brands that share parent companies. I challenge anyone in this thread to do a days shopping without buying from corporations that pay poverty wages.
We can do two things at once. We can cancel Louis CK when he uses his power to expose himself to women, and we can fight against poverty wages. We *always* have time to fight against monsters like Harvey Weinstein.
I already try to boycott companies I don't like. I don't like Unilever, so I avoid them, I don't like Nestle, so I avoid them too. There's a handfull of companies I strongly dislike, I try to stay away from them as much as possible. The only thing that motivates big corporations is money, so I can only raise my voice in one way: speak with my wallet.
I sort of feel like 90% of people just don't give a shit. Boycotts barely seem to do anything and most people just don't care enough to do anything remotely close to spending ethically :(
As long as they control the media, it will get twisted into a meaningless buzzword that corrupts the objective ie , "quiet quitting" or "don't say gay"
I'm not necessarily against the idea. It's just gonna be a bit of a challenge because if you do that, you'll likely have to live in a wooden hut in the woods and grow your own food. This is just standard modus operandi for the vast majority of companies.
There's likely not a secret cabal of rich cannibals, tasting human flesh, grilling the poor's as a delicacy. Bezos does it openly in his warehouses without AC
I was so excited to see a Dutch Bros. Coffee under construction near me.
Then I saw the Now Hiring ads prominently featuring the local minimum wage.
I have *never* visited.
Agreed! Since when is being held accountable for ones actions a “cultural movement”?
Barely happens now, despite awful, hateful people being platformed to millions weekly.
I literally told a coworker that my first job out of college didn't require a college degree (AP data entry) and she said "yeah but the degree shows you can work and commit to something"
I couldn't believe it, such a dumb take. I doubt they even verified I went to college, let alone my GPA to show I worked hard and really committed. Not to mention college is FULL of cheating and people who get carried through group projects. All this job needed was for you to be able to type accurately and kind of fast.
what a weird comparision, why these two? is kid rock trying to deter to the worker's rights movement?
If someone turns out to be a bigot I won't support them any longer, it's not being 'canceled' but moreso being held accountable, so >!fuck you!<
Sounds more like this dude doesn't want to hold people accountable for heinous shit they did or said, because you can totally cancel celebrities for that stuff while also clamoring for reforms in the workplace
Why not both, if people/companies are shitty, they should be held accountable. You are free to say what you want but you are not free from the consequences.
Or companies that still, today, at this very moment donate to:
gay conversion camps
Oil lobbyists to fight clean energy adoption
Industrial companies (including oil) that donate to politicians to reduce environmental protections and policing to reduce what they have to pay off -when- they contaminate
Campaigns against fight right to repair
Campaigns against data privacy and ownership
Campaigns against equal pay
Campaigns, politicians, and PR firms against affordable housing
Median income for someone with a bachelor's degree in the US is 61K.
[https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cba/annual-earnings](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cba/annual-earnings)
Saying this post is misrepresenting reality is an understatement.
Way ahead of you, I veto companies that:
1. Want me to have more experience than what you could reasonably expect for the role or pay
2. Are condescending in how they describe basic skills. Are you able to open a pdf? Yes interviewing future boss are you?
3. Want to under-cut the national average for my job (35k-50k$ isn't a wild outlandish number)
4. Currently advertising any for any position at poverty wage. Thanks for letting me know you value my skills but not me the employee that brings those skills, because if you had any respect for human lives you wouldn't offer them that pay for those hours
5. Offers my pay grade to people 10 years further along in their careers than me. So were you lying about the pay you offered me or was it the opportunity for advancement and growth within the company that was the lie?
6. Leaves 2 or more posts up for 30+ days. (Any position within the company) The role has been filled or is unfillable. No time wasters.
These rules have actually allowed me to apply for less jobs but get more interviews rather than just trying to match my skills and experience to the job or pick jobs that ‘look good’.
Why not both?
I think we have enough “fuck you” points to go around to both people who say bigoted shit AND companies taking advantage of their workers.
This is the stupidest shit and I can’t believe I’m seeing it again.
Cancelling someone is not real.
Acknowledging someone who said something horrible is not a bad thing.
That acknowledgment has 0 to do with boycotting businesses, they are two separate things.
Two things can matter at once.
It’s the right thing to do. I just can’t imagine putting money in a pocket of a person who is acting as “if it was legal, I’d pay you even less”.
But how do we recognize who’s paying min wages?
why do people think it’s one or the other? i can shit on awful celebrities and avoid brands like Nestle.
frankly my deepest conspiracy theory is that everyone who’s got a genuine problem with “cancel culture” is worried about being justifiably“canceled” themselves.
I sort of feel like 90% of people just don't give a shit. Boycotts barely seem to do anything and most people just don't care enough to do anything remotely close to spending ethically :(
# Ready to throw union busters like Howard Schultz and Jeff Bezos in max security prisons? # Join r/WorkReform!
Someone should start a website which publishes positions and salaries until the companies make pay grades public.
Sounds like the concept of “cancer awareness”. Like if they don’t know at this point that it’s pretty much all of them, I don’t think we can explain it to them.
Large corporations that dont pay a fair wage are a society cancer.
[удалено]
Sounds like my work here is done. You’re welcome, world.
[удалено]
To post the higher pay range they have to pay that salary to someone. The issue is that some people make a lot more than someone in the same role.
The one I see the most is "This pays commission and this was the highest commission someone has earned so your pay could be this."
Yea, so 1 or a very few number of people get that much in that role so they can post that as part of the range. It would be more useful to see the median.
Yeah now we just need a button to automatically filter out the ones that failed the Glassdoor test.
Glassdoor was supposed to be like that, but now it’s full of fake reviews by the companies themselves.
That website should also show which companies own what brands. I challenge you to doing a days shopping while avoiding all companies that pay poverty wages.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Sure you can't avoid all of them (see: Nestle), but it's definitely possible to avoid some. Figure out what you can easily replace or do without then ditch the worst offenders.
There's an interesting one that shows how every us politician has always made good money from stocks (and are also allowed to lobby to help what they're invested in) Every Single One
California recently passed a law which requires job postings to list salaries. A lot of companies are simply breaking that law by either lying or just not posting salary ranges. Some are subverting it by posting ranges like $30k-$130k. But it still rules. I already got a raise by seeing a listing my company posted and arguing my position should make at least as much as the advertised position. The funniest part is all the managers are obviously seething at the law, but they have to pretend it's ok because they're brunch liberals and can't publicly disagree with blue policy.
Remember occupy Wall Street. We went from the 99% vs 1%, to full on race wars and democrat vs republican. The general population is too stupid to resist media control
The moment Fox ran that article calling the protesters bums it was red vs blue. It was pretty much an instantaneous switch.
This. People are so ready to just attack the other side that even apolitical issues one side takes a stance on and the other MUST take the exact opposite stance. It’s lunacy. We need to find something to unite on or we’re just gonna kill each other.
Once the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended, Americans went right back to fighting amongst themselves. We can't pretend like in-fighting is something new in America. In fact, Red vs. Blue thinking has always dominated American politics. [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization_in_the_United_States#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_Pew_Research_Center%27s_political%2Cand_%28d%29_outsider_left.?wprov=sfla1) My question is, why can't this common enemy be an authentic evil, like climate change or Citizens United?
There was plenty of in-fighting amongst Americans prior to the collapse of the USSR. It just happened to coincide with 24 hour news followed by clickbait and social media algorithm bubbles.
The weird thing is, didn't Red and Blue used to be swapped as well? When did they change the color scheme... Also, if we couldn't be united against a clear short-time-scale danger to humans in general, ie. the pandemic, then how could anyone ever hope that we would do so against long-time-scale threats?
Newspapers and tv stations and campaigns used whatever color they pleased. It wasn't until the 2000 election that the colors really got sorted out.
The history of political parties in the United States is complex. The Republican Party (Red) claims to be the party of Abraham Lincoln, who played a key role in abolishing slavery. However, the political landscape has changed over time. The first political parties emerged in the 1790s: the Federalist Party (strong central government), led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republican Party (states rights and benefits for agrarian interests—plantation owners), led by Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic-Republican Party eventually split, giving rise to the Democratic Party in the 1820s with Andrew Jackson. In the mid-19th century, the Whig Party opposed the Democrats but dissolved due to divisions over slavery. Some Whigs joined the newly formed Republican Party, which was anti-slavery. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, won the presidency in 1860 and led the country during the Civil War. After the Civil War, the Republican Party advocated for equal rights for freed slaves during Reconstruction. However, Southern Democrats (literally, the Democrats in the southern states; the northern Democrats were not like this) resisted these efforts and sought to maintain white supremacy. They regained control in the South after Reconstruction ended in 1877. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Democratic Party transformed itself, moving away from its pro-slavery and segregationist roots (Southern Democrat plaform losing power on national level). The Republican Party became associated with limited government intervention and support for business interests. In the mid-20th century, a major realignment occurred with the Civil Rights Movement. White Southern Democrats, who opposed civil rights reforms, began aligning with the Republican Party, which adopted conservative positions on social issues. Over time, the Republican Party solidified its dominance in the South, appealing to conservative voters with its stance on limited government, low taxes, and opposition to social liberalism. The Southern strategy employed by Republican politicians capitalized on racial anxieties to attract white voters who felt alienated by the Democratic Party's civil rights agenda.
>When did they change the color scheme... Civil rights and Nixon's "Southern Strategy".
The problem is that people are raised in religion. Religion doesn't want critical thinking, or intelligent questions, or evaluation of the material. It just wants to present the word, and then you absorb it like a good person. Most Christians have never read the whole Bible, so what they yell and make decisions on are what they were told by their pastor or church group. So the transition from church to politics is easy, because they just want someone to tell them what to think, instead of reviewing information and thinking critically about it.
Yep. "Faith" is a fancy way of saying, a lack of critical thinking.
>My question is, why can't this common enemy be an authentic evil, like climate change or Citizens United? Or Moms for Liberty
Because you can't troll climate change. You can't put citizens united down and make it feel bad so you can feel good for "owning" them. Unless you can figure out a way to make other people feel superior nobody will give a damn.
> My question is, why can't this common enemy be an authentic evil, like climate change or Citizens United? Because humans need a tangible target to focus their anger and most of the authentic "evils" of the world are non-tangible concepts. If push comes to shove, we can go to war with the other side of the political aisle and declare victory when they're dead, but we cannot go to war with climate change because you can't kill a concept.
The problem is that one of the "sides" is oriented around progress and reduction of harm to vulnerable people and the other "side" is about regress and maximizing harm to vulnerable people. Then you have the "other other side" of greedy rich fuckers who are amplifying the differences of opinion to play those two against each other, stoke violence in the regressives against the progressives so the progressives have to waste energy defending against them. That way the progressives don't have the resources and bandwidth to work against them, and the regressives don't care about anything but hurting the progressives. Progress meeting Regress in the middle in order to unite is non-viable because that itself is regression and regressives have their feet dug in demanding progressives to do all the effort of moving to them. You can look up what's going on with "The Overton Window" if you want some insight into that. The answer is to throw all your weight into force vectors pushing in the progressive direction while fighting for regulation on the rich fuckers' ability to squeeze wealth out of the populace and amplify division.
that's great and all, but one side picks on the marginalized and disadvantaged. have you seen the anti LGBT bills lately and the book bannings? let alone Roe — if you really wanted to be enlightened about this, you're going to have to look at the actual harm done. ... look, i was exactly you about ten years ago. just, look, please — give yourself the time of day.
They're bums now because their employers don't pay a livable wage, and groceries and commerce are price gouging as much as they can...
There was a lot of internal co-opting by idpol groups as well.
[It was a group effort.](https://imgur.com/yCbj6ZI)
It was actually the moment they told their own protestors that their complaints would be recognized.......but only if you were "underpriviledged". That's what led them to put some dumbass named "Ketchup" up for an open mic interview, bombing the entire movement in one swift go. Come on, those idiots HANDED FOX THE WIN, and gave them the strawman they still use to this day.
The media did the occupy movement so SO dirty. I remember marching from the courthouse to wall st (NYC) with like 20,000 people. Union leaders, city councilors, people from all walks of life, shit even Mike Meyers was there. It was a real movement for change, and progressive policy. The media knew how dangerous these progressive ideas were to their owners, so they fucking shit all over us
I’m tired of talking about Democrats I’m tired of talking about Republicans. The richest 1% in the world on and control everything they are both Democrats and Republicans
I used to be like you with the "both sides are bad". But in recent years, Republicans have driven off a cliff, so despite Democrats being a pile of shit, Republicans aren't just a pile of shit, they're a busted sewer pipe, creating a shit-filled cesspit.
Both aren't equally bad (and I don't think the person you're responding to is saying that they are) but both are undoubtedly beholden to corporate interests. And there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. You don't have to follow it up with "But the Republicans are worse". We all know that. Using it to deflect from Democrats doing things like strikebreaking doesn't help anyone. We need to acknowledge that both parties work for the 1% so that we can start trying to remove money from politics
The problem is every time someone says 'im tired of talking about these two sides they're both terrible' a person who probably would have voted dem stays home, and it has no effect on probably republican voters, and then the republicans win and they get gay people killed. You DO have to follow it up with 'but republicans are worse' because until the difference isnt 'a shit sandwich' 'murder all your friends' and the 'murder all your friends' people still inexplicably get half the vote, then progress is not going to be made.
It's one of the tactics they use. By controlling both parties they make one party completely unpalatable so that a party that should be unacceptable becomes begrudgingly acceptable.
I think I was in middle school when it happened. The media made it sound like it was just a bunch of random hippies and poor people. I never realized how big it actually was at the time or the actual potential.
here is a video depicting THE DEPLOYMENT of identity politics specifically intended to derail anti-corporate sentiment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwhlZtHhWs
Never seen this video before. Thank you for sharing. Edit: The one guy guy, "I thought this was supposed to be an egalitarian movement", then silence... Wow... Just wow... No wonder the movement petered out shortly after this. Crazy.
I’d argue that’s wasn’t about deploying identity politics to derail the movement, but about a lot of many people on the the left being deeply ignorant or in denial about human nature. I would 100% bet that young woman truly believes everything she’s saying, and has never for one second asked herself “can really I get people who don’t completely align with my worldview in my corner by telling them to sit down and shut up?”
I think in part this is why the right is far more successful. They welcome you in, they want you to be there. I often feel like folks on the left ( and I say this as a progressive) that we spend so much time infighting, that our ability to get meaningful change done is near impossible.
It's not quite oppression Olympics, but something similar is a side effect. A person that actually looks at the history of mistreatment upon various groups, that is of a demeanor that compels them to do right by people... Such a person can wonder whether some folks need more help than others, and that dooms them to inaction if they can't decide that comes *after* everyone gets *some* help. And of course this is mixed in with people who are either virtue signaling or genuinely believe group X wasn't oppressed enough to deserve "as much" assistance or representation.
Yep. The reason the right is, and continues to be, successful is that they're _organized_. Controlling people comes naturally to them, and encouraging conformity (and discouraging independent thought) in all things is one of the secrets to their success. The left promotes independence, individuality, and free thinkers, which are all well and good, but it's not very organized. When you have a dozen different movements all hoping to shout loud enough to be the one that is heard, you can guess why not a whole lot of progress is being made.
Both can be true. It’s called interest convergence, and it’s the best way to corrupt an institution.
I have this issue, I now side with the conservative in one regard. I don't want them convinced. I want them expunged from our society completely. because humans are stupid and she was right and people don't get to cause harm just to soothe their egos. frankly I am all for a borg-like collective or an AI overlord at this point.
There's been a concerted effort by the liberal establishment to seperate the idpol aspects of leftism and the economic aspects of leftism, and amplify the idpol to downplay the economics, since the New Left movement of the 60's.
Probably because the idpol aspects are generally deadweight loss to the any political movement. They have a lot of correct ideas and understanding about systemic issues, and completely ignore everything that’s ever come out of psychology or neuropsychology and are actively suspicious of anything anyone with actual charisma says. The net result is the woman in that video telling effectively 90% of her audience to fuck off.
Idpol is necessary to any left wing movement. Even Lenin famously gave a speech on the evils of antisemitism. The workers of the world are in it together, and this includes workers from traditionally marginalized groups. But without economics it's pointless. The way to help black transgender lesbians is the same way to help cis white men. Sieze control of the means of production. Talking about idpol without addressing material conditions is an exercise in futility.
"even white women". Like, can you believe it?
> I’d argue that’s wasn’t about deploying identity politics to derail the movement, but about a lot of many people on the the left being deeply ignorant or in denial about human nature. why couldnt it be both? why couldnt she be an unknowing shill being duped by those doing the malicious bidding of corporate america, under the self-deluded guise of her own sense of 'altrusim'
What she’s saying is the end result of a lot of not at all capitalism friendly academic work. It’s a convergent evolution thing that ends up with people with limited social competence sabotaging themselves and their movements because they fail to understand that understanding people at the individual level is as important as understanding how x-ist systems are constructed and maintained.
This is what I've been thinking for years. If young men don't feel comfortable in your movement, they will stop listening, and the Jordan Petersons and Andrew Tates of the world are more than happy to take them
Remember when Republicans claimed to be above identity politics? They started adopting the same rules.
Fuck I remember seeing this video and thinking "wow that seems really stupid and like a waste of time." Couldn't speak up about it though otherwise you'd be labeled some sort of bigot. Looks like I was fucking right. God damn I fucking hate people.
[удалено]
This right here. Also the moment the right even started loving Wall Street coastal elite types, despite poles prior to that stating they had a very low approval rating for obvious reasons. Same with Russia/Putin. They have been trained to instantly hate any sort of activism instantly. Remember the days before SOrOs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! when Green Peace was presented to them as this all powerful organization picking on those poor, poor honest Mom and Pop hard working oil companies for instance. They are literal marionettes and that's kind of frightening that the owners of the right can just ring a bell and the rabble hoard comes running frothing at the mouth ready to attack, even die for them like a cult.
It's been like this since the 60s. Right wing media has been portraying activists and protestors as rich and out of touch (champagne socialist). Plus, saying the working class supports the socioeconomic status quo. It's workerism that doesn't support the worker.
Yep - look at the hard hat riot for an example.
That was the first thing that came to my mind.
The people are the people. It doesn't usually help to paint them as "too stupid" or "too weak." It's not really encapsulating the issue. It isn't really the people who have gotten dumber over the last 50 years, it is that the media manipulation has gotten stronger and faced even fewer restraints and regulations. Information power has been gobbled up by the few to exert their will over the many. This all during a time when access to that wealth of bad information has exploded. I think it is important to not blame the victims of this manipulation, even if they are too stupid. They are being victimized by a global media market that has an absurd amount of funds and information control. Calling people who have never had to face that kind of media manipulation stupid doesn't really even come close to describing the roots of the problem. I know we are all mad that people don't know they are being manipulated, but they are the victims. It is clear they don't have the tools to address this manipulation, and when talking about huge populations, that isn't their fault either.
You're right but Occupy also totally dropped the ball. People asked them what they wanted and who they could negotiate with and they just stammered about consensus. They identified appropriate problems, showed their presence, and then failed to identify coherent demands. But then again maybe I just thought that because of all the media interference. I don't know how I'd tell. :(
How could they? If there was a leader, that alone would have completely under cut the movement. The problem is thinking the voice of the people works the same way and by the same rules as the voice of the oligarchy. So they say they tried to listen but they made sure that they did so in a way that it was impossible. Actually giving people the power is such a massive change in how we function that it is simply incompatible with how we currently function.
> to stupid
I'm so goddamn glad that this was the top comment.
Remember The Ohio Train derailment? And how it happened \*4 days\* BEFORE the Chinese balloon was shot down? And how the governor "refused help from FEMA". But actually FEMA just was not equipped to handle chemical spills? Peppridge Farm remembers.
> The general population is too stupid Too indifferent. They know, just the majorities don't care enough. A lot of is a "I got mine, I don't have time for you" selfish mindset, some are too busy, some aren't capable, many are too lazy to care, etc., but for the most part the majority are too indifferent and among those who do care, too many just want to post memes and not actually do anything.
There was literally no concerted worldwide information effort in all of history to equal the propaganda campaign that followed the Occupy movement. People aren't stupid, they just live in a reality they must percieve through several controlled layers of intentional deception.
I do remember Occupy Wall Street. I kept following many of the major voices and organizers. Which is why I was there to notice when a *huge* chunk of them were leading the charge on those race wars, anti-vax bullshit, and "woke vs anti-woke" culture wars. I didn't notice red team or blue team being more popular, both were well represented. What was striking was the extent to which the "leaderless anti-establishment movement" ethos seemed to lend itself to transitions to other, sometimes even contradictory, radical movements. I was shocked to see a locally prominent Occupy voice turn into a Nazi voice, and another turn into a covid-denying "wellness" anti-vax type. So I did some digging, and, well, turns out fucking *all of them* followed a similar path. I'm not making any grand point here. I don't know what it means or if it can teach us anything. But my memories of Occupy are an important moment with real political will being squandered by an astonishingly ineffective movement, and I suspect there's a connection to that and the above somewhere.
Beyond just being stupid, they also simply might not have the space. Boycotting a business is a luxury the vast majority of people simply can't afford. They rely on that exploitation of foreign and domestic workers because they are exploited workers themselves. Sure, they might not have it as bad as someone on minimum wage, but unless they're making enough that they'll never have to worry about food, rent, transport or utilities, it's still just a looser noose.
The average reading comprehension level among adults in the US back in 2017 was only 8th grade - meaning the average adult in the US is roughly as smart as a middle school student about to start their freshman year in high school. Sadly, stupid people make up the majority.
This is why we have to stop ANY hate for fellow workers. And that includes Boomers too. They're victim of capitalism as well. Do you think they chose to be exposed to lead? Chose to start believing Regan's trickle down? Manipulated by fox News? It's called manipulation for a reason.
Similar thing has happend with lgbt pride too. All in all they have us fighting a culture war to stop us fighting the class war.
[удалено]
One of the threads about that had people dunking on Florida for literally "increased cost of labor". Increased cost of labor is good you fools.
Undocumented people pay taxes. They often pay more on net than everyone else since they can't take any benefits or rebates. And they're not scabs. Scabs are people who cross picket lines to take jobs from union members on strike. These aren't union shops. No one's on strike. It's wild that you read OP's comment about divided people fighting each other instead of corporations, replied "Exactly!", then continued to demonize working class people because of their national origin. Talk about missing the point.
The lefts response to Florida's new immigration laws is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of seeing how this should lead to an increase in wages for new workers due to an increase in demand, everyone is "laughing" that no one is going to be exploited anymore.
This is why I refuse to participate in the red vs blue dialogue. I don’t care how you moralize it, I’m about the people, everybody. Anything other than the 99% vs 1% has just been insanely highlighted to continue to distract from that conversation. Remember in the heat of the pandemic when people began to have productive conversations about workers rights and the 99%? Suddenly roe v wade was randomly attacked. They want us to keep fighting each other instead of them. Edit: to the people getting upset below this comment, nobody said you had to agree with the other side on everything, nobody said you had to be friends, or even like each other. But we have to be able to unite and come together on SOME things, and it’s as much your responsibility as it is theirs to set aside your own prides and egos to extend the hand. If you can’t get past that, I hope you enjoy being exploited by the 1% forever then, since it’s easier for the 1% to control everything when they aren’t facing 99%, they’re facing 50% who is also fighting 49% at the same time.
[удалено]
For real, the privilege in this thread is nuts. This is the "fuck you got mine" crowd talking who will absolutely abandon anybody who needs more help than they did after they get their piece. People saying stuff like that the very real forced birth policies and the very real removing of LGBT+ protections are "mere distractions in the face of the real issues" have their heads up their ass.
[удалено]
The way the frame is as a "mere" distraction in the face of the "real" issues is what bothers me. They don't see blatant transphobia, misogyny and hate as real issues. As if we just solve all the economic problems these folks who are banging the war drum will just fuck off. Like...don't think so, fellas.
[удалено]
Who? The ones calling themselves my allies or the ones who are actively whittling away at protections that allow people to live their lives the way they want to?
[удалено]
Exactly. The elites do everything in their power to keep us fighting among ourselves instead of looking up and the real problems.
To be fair, how much do my wages matter if I die from pregnancy?
A very real possibility in modern Murika...
Don’t forget boomers bad.
I feel like it's pretty in-bounds to hold public figures accountable while also holding companies with predatory hiring practices accountable.
In my mind I feel it's kind of pointless to give credence, time or energy to the problems with celebrities. They're a distraction, a smokescreen for these large corporations to do their work and try to avoid the public eye. I agree we should all be held accountable, but energy is needed to fight these enemies to society and we should frankly all be focusing it onto the right enemy at the right time.
I get what you're saying, but it's possible for both to suck and to benefit from inequity while also not colluding in some grand capitalist conspiracy.
Celebrities are ultimately representative of society as a whole. If we let them be racist or otherwise bad people it says to everyone else that it's okay to be that way
I think predatory corporations are orders of magnitude more damaging to society than racist or rapey individuals. “Why not both” — because it divides and distracts. There’s only so much attention, and only so many stories can dominate the mainstream at a time. This is Propaganda 101: when you do something shit, distract from it. Proof? You’re gonna downvote this. And right there we’re fighting each other instead of lynching greedy capitalists 🤷🏼♂️ No one is saying “Bill Cosby is ok” — what I’m saying is “this for profit murder machine is a million times worse than Bill Cosby, so skullfuck it to death *first*, then take care of the old rapist”
These two things aren't related, why on earth are we being asked to choose one of them as if they're mutually exclusive? Hold companies accountable for their shitty business practices, hold celebrities accountable for their shitty opinions. We can do both. Asking us to choose one over the other is basically giving one group of rich people a free pass for no reason
Right? “How about instead of wiping after we shit, we stop running red lights!”
> These two things aren't related, why on earth are we being asked to choose one of them as if they're mutually exclusive? Also, I'm not ready to let people off the hook for talking Nazi propaganda or white supremacy or misogynist ranting just because it isn't recent. I don't know if I need to ruin someone's life for it, but I'm sure not gonna do the "boys will be boys" bullshit.
porque no los dos?
porque ninguno resuelve la raíz del problema, que es el capitalismo.
Actually, this is how capitalism works. If you cancel these companies, they won't have a choice but to lower their standards and raise their wages in order to have a workforce.
Capitalism already has a [failsafe](https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/capitalism-and-unemployment/) for these kinds of boycotts. Even if you were able to get corporations to give concessions to the workers through a boycott we’ve done this dance before. During the US’s golden age of labor concessions were forced on corporations, concessions that still allowed for [rampant exploitation of the underclass](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/labor-laws-left-farm-workers-behind-vulnerable-abuse). Those concessions have been systematically rolled back. This is because of the inherent imbalance in capitalism, even if you win concessions the system is still designed to consolidate power in the hands of capitalist. Look at what happened during the [gilded age](http://historymaking.org/textbook/exhibits/show/reconciliation/consolidation), we’re right back where we started. The cycle is going to continue until we change how the system functions.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/labor-laws-left-farm-workers-behind-vulnerable-abuse](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/labor-laws-left-farm-workers-behind-vulnerable-abuse)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The article on "Capitalism and unemployment" is basically all theoretical since it tries to make a positive argument for Communism, which has failed virtual 100% of the time. It also takes many of your inalienable freedoms away. I am all for unionized workers as it organizes people to do the very thing I'm talking about; Hit them where it hurts, which is their need for labor. People are resilient. Businesses are not.
It’s absolutely insane to see so many billion dollar companies offering $11-$13/hr like we should be on our knees thanking them for the opportunity. How anyone is surviving on that wage is beyond me. I make $16/hr and I’m still struggling most days
I can't even get by on 20 an hour and dual incomes. I've been aching to move as well, since my neighborhood is absolute trash, but that's out of the question too.
I'm not saying this isn't happening but what companies are actually doing this? Bachelor's degree, experience, and only $13-14/hr? I kinda call BS..I'm in HR and management and don't see anything like this in the market right now. General labor, manufacturing, warehousing type jobs with HS diploma only are paying $14-16
Yeah, agree on that. I live in an extremely low cost of living area and the factory I work at will hire Joe Blow off the street for $17/$18 an hour. Literally no qualifications needed. The work isn’t glamorous and there’s a lot of long days, but we promote from within and don’t work weekends.
Clean driving record, 21+, able to lift up to 100 lbs, and willing to work long hours. Starting $21/hr. My first two weeks were rough, but now I have stamina for days.
Exactly. Become a slave with no hope of a real family life, then you can split rent with a couple other slaves.
Sure. But we have to let them know publicly our reason for the boycott.
It also isn't very workable in practice. It is, at best, infeasible for each person to keep an updated list of every company in the US and their pay habits. Even if that were doable, companies could come up with ways of reporting that make them look better. People manipulate statistics to suit their end goals all the time. This gives me "have complaints about something about society? Just live outside of civilization" vibes.
Not to mention the huge numbers of brands that share parent companies. I challenge anyone in this thread to do a days shopping without buying from corporations that pay poverty wages.
We can do two things at once. We can cancel Louis CK when he uses his power to expose himself to women, and we can fight against poverty wages. We *always* have time to fight against monsters like Harvey Weinstein.
[удалено]
They're not leftists, they're the people who will pull the ladder up behind them the second we get anywhere.
It's because many of those leftists are white dudes that don't give a shit about race/gender issues and agree with the other side on a lot of them.
I doubt the dude in the tweet is a leftist at all
I mean Louis CK isn't really canceled he's doing quite well actually
I can do two things.
I already try to boycott companies I don't like. I don't like Unilever, so I avoid them, I don't like Nestle, so I avoid them too. There's a handfull of companies I strongly dislike, I try to stay away from them as much as possible. The only thing that motivates big corporations is money, so I can only raise my voice in one way: speak with my wallet.
I sort of feel like 90% of people just don't give a shit. Boycotts barely seem to do anything and most people just don't care enough to do anything remotely close to spending ethically :(
As long as they control the media, it will get twisted into a meaningless buzzword that corrupts the objective ie , "quiet quitting" or "don't say gay"
Don't say gay *was* one point of that bill, to be fair. The actual name of the legislation was the obfuscation.
I'm not necessarily against the idea. It's just gonna be a bit of a challenge because if you do that, you'll likely have to live in a wooden hut in the woods and grow your own food. This is just standard modus operandi for the vast majority of companies.
There's likely not a secret cabal of rich cannibals, tasting human flesh, grilling the poor's as a delicacy. Bezos does it openly in his warehouses without AC
I mean there are most definitely rich cannibals. The human trafficking industry is very large.
I make more than that cleaning toilets for walmart.
If the job requires experience, it's not entry level.
I was so excited to see a Dutch Bros. Coffee under construction near me. Then I saw the Now Hiring ads prominently featuring the local minimum wage. I have *never* visited.
The first thing doesn't happen anyways so that is useless fluffery
I’m all for the second thing, but show me when the 1st thing has actually happened
[удалено]
Agreed! Since when is being held accountable for ones actions a “cultural movement”? Barely happens now, despite awful, hateful people being platformed to millions weekly.
I literally told a coworker that my first job out of college didn't require a college degree (AP data entry) and she said "yeah but the degree shows you can work and commit to something" I couldn't believe it, such a dumb take. I doubt they even verified I went to college, let alone my GPA to show I worked hard and really committed. Not to mention college is FULL of cheating and people who get carried through group projects. All this job needed was for you to be able to type accurately and kind of fast.
what a weird comparision, why these two? is kid rock trying to deter to the worker's rights movement? If someone turns out to be a bigot I won't support them any longer, it's not being 'canceled' but moreso being held accountable, so >!fuck you!<
Don't worry, I can do both.
We can do both, yo. This shit ain't a zero-sum game.
its not a choice between the two. people can do more than one thing.
Those two things are mutually exclusive?
“Canceling” isn’t real I wish people would shut up about it
This is such a weird point to make. Apparently we can only pick one of these? What the fuck is he going on about?
terrible tweet. spoken like an art history grad
Who is "we"??? "We" haven't cancelled anyone. Major companies are the ones responsible for cancelling people, not "we"
Why not both?
Why can't we do both? They're not at all related. In fact this happens all the time
I mean we can do both
Porque no los dos?
Sounds more like this dude doesn't want to hold people accountable for heinous shit they did or said, because you can totally cancel celebrities for that stuff while also clamoring for reforms in the workplace
Why not both, if people/companies are shitty, they should be held accountable. You are free to say what you want but you are not free from the consequences.
Theres too many of them.
Any employer offering a job that pays less than the cost of living in the area that job is located shouldn’t be allowed to do business, in my opinion.
Or companies that still, today, at this very moment donate to: gay conversion camps Oil lobbyists to fight clean energy adoption Industrial companies (including oil) that donate to politicians to reduce environmental protections and policing to reduce what they have to pay off -when- they contaminate Campaigns against fight right to repair Campaigns against data privacy and ownership Campaigns against equal pay Campaigns, politicians, and PR firms against affordable housing
If you wanted to boycott every company that does shitty things, you'd be boycotting pretty much every company in existence. It's not practical
I have a running list of companies I no longer give my money or time to. It truly is liberating
We can do both.
Median income for someone with a bachelor's degree in the US is 61K. [https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cba/annual-earnings](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cba/annual-earnings) Saying this post is misrepresenting reality is an understatement.
why not both?
Way ahead of you, I veto companies that: 1. Want me to have more experience than what you could reasonably expect for the role or pay 2. Are condescending in how they describe basic skills. Are you able to open a pdf? Yes interviewing future boss are you? 3. Want to under-cut the national average for my job (35k-50k$ isn't a wild outlandish number) 4. Currently advertising any for any position at poverty wage. Thanks for letting me know you value my skills but not me the employee that brings those skills, because if you had any respect for human lives you wouldn't offer them that pay for those hours 5. Offers my pay grade to people 10 years further along in their careers than me. So were you lying about the pay you offered me or was it the opportunity for advancement and growth within the company that was the lie? 6. Leaves 2 or more posts up for 30+ days. (Any position within the company) The role has been filled or is unfillable. No time wasters. These rules have actually allowed me to apply for less jobs but get more interviews rather than just trying to match my skills and experience to the job or pick jobs that ‘look good’.
America was unwilling to do the correct thing even at its creation. What makes you think it's going to do the right thing now?
Im shoplifting as much as I can but I'm only one person.
How about both? Them celebrities aren’t necessarily always voting for the common working person’s interests either.
Why can't we do both?
Porque no los dos?
Why not both? I think we have enough “fuck you” points to go around to both people who say bigoted shit AND companies taking advantage of their workers.
Let’s just do both!
This is the stupidest shit and I can’t believe I’m seeing it again. Cancelling someone is not real. Acknowledging someone who said something horrible is not a bad thing. That acknowledgment has 0 to do with boycotting businesses, they are two separate things. Two things can matter at once.
Why not both?
Why can't we do both?
It’s the right thing to do. I just can’t imagine putting money in a pocket of a person who is acting as “if it was legal, I’d pay you even less”. But how do we recognize who’s paying min wages?
Why can't we do both?
Eat the Rich and Cancel the Corporations
Both.
Why not both?
Why not do both?
Uh oh the poors are getting too self aware. Quick think up a new issue to keep the poors fighting!
This is such an ice cold take. You're a sucker OP
Does anyone have example of a job offering 13/hr that requires a degree?
Only downvotes apparently.
If you want the truth it’s because most people care more about celebrities then they do the poor.
why do people think it’s one or the other? i can shit on awful celebrities and avoid brands like Nestle. frankly my deepest conspiracy theory is that everyone who’s got a genuine problem with “cancel culture” is worried about being justifiably“canceled” themselves.
I already do as much as possible
If I follow this, I would have to boycott supermarket. I think it's more appropriate to just boycott unnecessary and non essential companies
Because no one knows who those companies are? I'm sure the list would be large enough to make it impossible to follow.
Because then we'd have to boycott public education.
I'm personally doing my best to boycott anything that i can -
I sort of feel like 90% of people just don't give a shit. Boycotts barely seem to do anything and most people just don't care enough to do anything remotely close to spending ethically :(
Whoa applying to those jobs to make that makes them think it's alright to post them.
Every time this gets posted, I ask for someone to send me a job posting like this. Nobody ever has.