Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

The pictures in that article are wonderful. Kid straight up dgaf.
And yes this is obviously the parents showing off. Unless that 3 year old has a social group that massively out-ages her, cognac isn't going to be doing her much good.

[Frumple]

“The day wasn’t all about the money,” Lembo said Tuesday, answering those who called the fete “wasteful”  and “vulgar.”

"Just 99% about the money. 1% about other things."

What kind of nightmare hellscape did that kid create to deserve a 200+ person birthday party inflicted upon them, anyway? Do these parents hate the child, or are they just unintentionally cruel?

[TempAcc]

:v parents using kids as an excuse to throw a major weird ass party is not an entirely uncommon thing, whats bogus is just how the party was obviously not for the kid. I mean, if you throw a party for a small child, it should have stuff that a small child would find entertaining, and I dont think a few people dressed as disney character is actual entertainment. Also, children usualy hate huge aglomeration of people, so it was probably worse for her then just a normal day in her life. Imagine being sleepy but not able to sleep because there are 200 effing drunk people partying and your parents are having way too much fun to care about you, on your own birthday.

[Reelya]

I think that's reading way too much into it, to say the kid couldn't sleep because there were 200 partying drunk people. The party was in the middle of the day, not at night. You can see bright sunlight streaming through the window in the provided photos. Sure, criticize it on known facts, there's no need to make up ficticious stuff to be outraged about.

These are Australians of vietnamese / italian origin. Those cultures are really big on family connections. And like the article said, it's a tradition to throw a huge party for the 1st birthday, so they decided to do it again in successive years. Most of the people there were probably extended family, not 20-somethings out for a "big night".

[TempAcc]

I think that's reading way too much into it, to say the kid couldn't sleep because there were 200 partying drunk people. The party was in the middle of the day, not at night. You can see bright sunlight streaming through the window in the provided photos. Sure, criticize it on known facts, there's no need to make up ficticious stuff to be outraged about.

These are Australians of vietnamese / italian origin. Those cultures are really big on family connections. And like the article said, it's a tradition to throw a huge party for the 1st birthday, so they decided to do it again in successive years. Most of the people there were probably extended family, not 20-somethings out for a "big night". And  it's Perth, which is complete dullsville. There's hardly any nightlife scene at all there.

Imagine being sleepy but not able to sleep because there are 200 effing drunk people partying and your parents are having way too much fun to care about you, on your own birthday.

[Reelya]

Why are you imagining it if you're not claiming that it's relevant? You prefaced that "imagine" comment with a direct comment of "it was probably worse for her then just a normal day in her life." so it's incredibly dodgy to now claim that it was merely a hypothetical.

I mean I could say something about not liking Obama then add "imagine having a gay muslim kenyan for president". Oh, but I said "imagine" so I'm only referring to a hypothetical Obama, not the real one

[TempAcc]

Why are you imagining it if you're not claiming that it's relevant? You prefaced that "imagine" comment with a direct comment of "it was probably worse for her then just a normal day in her life." so it's incredibly dodgy to now claim that it was merely a hypothetical.

:v

[Reelya]

God, that's some dodgy rationalization.

So I could say Obama is "probably" a communist. But I'm not actually attacking Obama because I said "probably".

[Frumple]

It... it was pretty clearly as a means to demonstrate how having 200+ people in the local area could interfere with a 3 year old's normal happiness-acquiring methods, such as taking a nap when tired (which they still do fairly often at that age).

[TempAcc]

^this

[Antsan]

I think that's reading way too much into it, to say the kid couldn't sleep because there were 200 partying drunk people. The party was in the middle of the day, not at night.

Wasn't it a third birthday? I think when you're three years old you don't particularly care about the time of the day. Sleeping is a major activity for all hours at that age.

[hops]

I mean, if money had some intrinsic power then we could just print infinite money and achieve a post-scarcity society.

Step 1: Print money.
Step 2: Burn money for energy.
Step 3:
Step 4: Profit!

I know this reply is incredibly late, but I would assume step 3 would have to involve magical girls and contracts for that to work.

[Truean]

Capitalism fails due to corporate greed, yet again:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/washington-farmers-dumping-unprofitable-apples-061144538.html

Dock workers have been getting the short end of the stick for years and it's "ok" because that's not a "real job" or so goes the perception saying these hard workers aren't worth anything.... So about $100 Million dollars worth of apples are literally being intentionally left to rot in the fields as compost.

Over specialization means there's no way to preserve or convert these apples into anything but compost. There's no way to bring in and set up juice presses, or hire labor to sauce and jar them. We live in a country where 1 in 6 (even if that's very high and it's 1 in 8 ) are food insecure, and the government or somebody couldn't find some way to do something with all that food?

So we're literally throwing it out to rot?

And I love how people are blaming the dock workers on this one. I do. Heaven forbid they actually stand up for themselves. Nobody considers their bosses who won't give into any reasonable demands or negotiate in good faith as the slightest bit responsible. The answer they seem to give is "you should feel lucky to have a job!" As if working hard manual labor is a lovely thing you should be honored to do, "slave." .... Magnificent.... B.S..

Corporations don't want to pay for hard work, farmers can't ship crops, bellies go empty.... Figures.

[Helgoland]

The ports dispute created numerous problems for farmers. A big issue is that apples loaded into unrefrigerated containers sat on docks for weeks waiting to be loaded on a ship, Fryhover said.

"It is a perishable crop," he said.

The record crop also created a shortage of refrigerated storage space for the apples, which normally can be stored for months and sold year round.

The result is lots of apples became too ripe even to be diverted to juice and applesauce makers and other processors, Fryhover said. And prices for processor apples are so low — $10 to $30 a ton — that they do not cover shipping costs, he said.

I'm used to folks here blaming everything on Capitalism like the Tea Party does with Obama, but is reading your own article really too much to ask?

[Reelya]

The ports were closed because of management trying to undermine the workers. It's in the same article. So it does go back to capitalist social relations no matter how you look at it. It was the bosses that closed the ports completely to try and break the bargaining power of the workers. Basically to use force to keep the workers doing more than their contract actually calls for them to do. The workers just worked slowly (and in accordance with their job descriptions, which is why they weren't just fired), it was the bosses that childishly and derailed the entire port system by closing it down - effectively holding everyone to ransom and blaming the workers.

Ports from San Diego to Seattle were all but shut down several months ago as the two sides haggled. Companies that accused workers of coordinated slowdowns decided to cut their shifts, shuttering ports on nights and weekends.

"Slowdowns" are a tactic where you work to what you're actually paid to do. Bosses cannot fire you because usually it means doing thing "by the book". It's also known a "work to rule": i.e. workers start following the actual rules rather than taking initiative, and this actually cripples production. It's a way of highlighting to management how much exta you're actually doing - extra things that you should really be paid for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule

Work-to-rule is an industrial action in which employees do no more than the minimum required by the rules of their contract, and precisely follow safety or other regulations in order to cause a slowdown, rather than to serve their purposes.[1][2] Such an action is considered less disruptive than a strike or lockout; and just obeying the rules is less susceptible to disciplinary action.

No capitalist entity should do "more than the minimum required by the rules of their contract" so why should workers be shamed for no doing extra? You want extra, pay for extra. That's how capitalism works. There shouldn't be one set of capitalist rules for the bosses, yet if a worker doesn't break his own back as a docile slave, they get shamed for their bad attitude.

Objectivism/Libertarianism states that each economic entity must be driven by rational self interest, and that self-interest is the highest morality. But this can't just apply to just bosses, if self-interest is a universal ethic as objectivists claim, then greedy workers must be the best workers.