Print

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

[Frumple]

Oh... yeah, I'm aware about the whole economic issue, but counting that as... ignorable isn't quite the right word, but 'consequence of the system' is probably accurate.

And unfortunately, they've got the cheapest food-I-eat that I've found in my area which is kinda' an issue E: As for which, well, it's mostly theirs, or whichever cheapest off-brand's still edible.

[SalmonGod]

I'd say it's a bit more than a consequence of the system.  That's part of it... but old Sam reeaaallly pushed those consequences to their fucking limits with the explicit intention of grinding any other business with a shred of ethics into dust.  The corporate landscape we're left with today is populated by the survivors who were willing to adapt.

[Truean]

I'd say it's a bit more than a consequence of the system.  That's part of it... but old Sam reeaaallly pushed those consequences to their fucking limits with the explicit intention of grinding any other business with a shred of ethics into dust.  The corporate landscape we're left with today is populated by the survivors who were willing to adapt.

Yes and unfortunately the fact that consumers are bastards plays right into the hands of businesses being bastards. If it weren't for people who didn't give a fuck and would just go to the store anyhow, a strong consumer union could break any business with a boycott round. That is, we shop at every store except this one store for 1 week, nobody buy shit at that one store. Again all the others are fair game, but not that one. Then, next week, we switch.....

Do you realize how much that would screw up their distribution system? Especially if they are under contract to move X amount of units from their suppliers, it would be cheaper for them to give shit away than to break those contracts. Which store is prohibited would make "rounds" First it's X, then its Y, then its Z.... etc etc etc.

Problem, "meh, I don't care, I'll just...." Or, "meh, it's cheaper." Or even, "just one won't hurt" ~Says everyone....

[Nadaka]

There were about 2 years where I boycotted wal-mart, but I eventually gave in to the convenience and low prices. I'll probably do it again after I get through some of the hell that is currently going on in my life.

[ChairmanPoo]

Mass stores usually have amazingly abusive contracts with their supplies. I know that one large chain here doesn't start paying the food they are selling now until six months have passed. A good case could be made that the profits of the supermarket are the least part of their business model. It's mainly a good way of getting good interest-free loans to be paid six months afterwards, as to fuel their parallel real estate business.

[SalmonGod]

I'd say it's a bit more than a consequence of the system.  That's part of it... but old Sam reeaaallly pushed those consequences to their fucking limits with the explicit intention of grinding any other business with a shred of ethics into dust.  The corporate landscape we're left with today is populated by the survivors who were willing to adapt.

Yes and unfortunately the fact that consumers are bastards plays right into the hands of businesses being bastards. If it weren't for people who didn't give a fuck and would just go to the store anyhow, a strong consumer union could break any business with a boycott round. That is, we shop at every store except this one store for 1 week, nobody buy shit at that one store. Again all the others are fair game, but not that one. Then, next week, we switch.....

Do you realize how much that would screw up their distribution system? Especially if they are under contract to move X amount of units from their suppliers, it would be cheaper for them to give shit away than to break those contracts. Which store is prohibited would make "rounds" First it's X, then its Y, then its Z.... etc etc etc.

Problem, "meh, I don't care, I'll just...." Or, "meh, it's cheaper." Or even, "just one won't hurt" ~Says everyone....

This sounds like a good suggestion to put up among Occupiers.  Maybe it could go viral with the right placement on the movement's new social network (occupii.org)

[Truean]

I'd say it's a bit more than a consequence of the system.  That's part of it... but old Sam reeaaallly pushed those consequences to their fucking limits with the explicit intention of grinding any other business with a shred of ethics into dust.  The corporate landscape we're left with today is populated by the survivors who were willing to adapt.

Yes and unfortunately the fact that consumers are bastards plays right into the hands of businesses being bastards. If it weren't for people who didn't give a fuck and would just go to the store anyhow, a strong consumer union could break any business with a boycott round. That is, we shop at every store except this one store for 1 week, nobody buy shit at that one store. Again all the others are fair game, but not that one. Then, next week, we switch.....

Do you realize how much that would screw up their distribution system? Especially if they are under contract to move X amount of units from their suppliers, it would be cheaper for them to give shit away than to break those contracts. Which store is prohibited would make "rounds" First it's X, then its Y, then its Z.... etc etc etc.

Problem, "meh, I don't care, I'll just...." Or, "meh, it's cheaper." Or even, "just one won't hurt" ~Says everyone....

This sounds like a good suggestion to put up among Occupiers.  Maybe it could go viral with the right placement on the movement's new social network (occupii.org)

Step 5 of my 57 step plan to break the oil cartels....
_______________________________________________

You just ... keep on talking don't you Mr. Santorum.... Church and state separation, then double talking.... Just random half sorta kinda said crap, huh?

[NinjaBoot]

I'd say it's a bit more than a consequence of the system.  That's part of it... but old Sam reeaaallly pushed those consequences to their fucking limits with the explicit intention of grinding any other business with a shred of ethics into dust.  The corporate landscape we're left with today is populated by the survivors who were willing to adapt.

Yes and unfortunately the fact that consumers are bastards plays right into the hands of businesses being bastards. If it weren't for people who didn't give a fuck and would just go to the store anyhow, a strong consumer union could break any business with a boycott round. That is, we shop at every store except this one store for 1 week, nobody buy shit at that one store. Again all the others are fair game, but not that one. Then, next week, we switch.....

Do you realize how much that would screw up their distribution system? Especially if they are under contract to move X amount of units from their suppliers, it would be cheaper for them to give shit away than to break those contracts. Which store is prohibited would make "rounds" First it's X, then its Y, then its Z.... etc etc etc.

Problem, "meh, I don't care, I'll just...." Or, "meh, it's cheaper." Or even, "just one won't hurt" ~Says everyone....

This sounds like a good suggestion to put up among Occupiers.  Maybe it could go viral with the right placement on the movement's new social network (occupii.org)

Step 5 of my 57 step plan to break the oil cartels....
_______________________________________________

You just ... keep on talking don't you Mr. Santorum.... Church and state separation, then double talking.... Just random half sorta kinda said crap, huh?

You mean actually drilling for all the oil in and around the United States? Psshaww..

Also, my apologies for not responding to your earlier comments in due haste (work 'n all that, plus DF!)

To your comment regarding LGBT and the negative social implications (and all that other hoopla), well.. uhm..

First off, yes, it is essentially "common knowledge" that we HAVE to accept people for who they are regardless of whatever we may believe (its what is crammed down our throats in school, social media, etc etc ad nauseum).  And that is where the problem for me is. We are forcing people into accepting a certain point of view on a certain topic because it is what we want (or what certain people want), and if people are against it, then they must be x (or y).  "Oh, so and so doesn't agree with me that LGBT people should be protected by the law against unlawful firings, because he is obviously a bigot/ignorant/ or something of the like."

That is the whole optic "progressives" use to argue for social change.  We must allow more of this, and those who say otherwise MUST be racist/homophobes/bigots/what have you. 

The above doesn't even touch on the fact that unfortunately alot of people will never be comfortable with transsexuals (or gays or lesbians).  They can have any numerous amounts of reasons, whether they are legitimate reasons or not, but if they were to voice those opinions, they would be branded something equally as negative.  By doing this, you are literally scaring people to conform to another group's point of view for fear of being branded something socially unacceptable.  And that is why these issues are in the background because people cannot have a serious dialogue on these sort of issues without people pulling out the race/homophobe/bigot cards.  I suppose you could argue that by suppressing people's natural opinions on things like these, you are forcing their displeasure to come out in different ways (your boss is harder on you at work for example).

[Descan]

I think there is a piece of scientific philosophy (that is, philosophy pertaining to science as a whole) that might be apt here. It says, forgive me if I get this wrong, I'm not even in University yet, that a paradigm shift doesn't happen when you finally convince the old guard, the people holding the old view. It happens when the old guard die out, and the new people, new scientists who aren't entrenched in the old system take over.

Since that seems to be saying something about humans and people rather than science in and of itself, I think it can fit here. It's very hard to convince people that they're wrong, especially if they have a vested interest in not being convinced, and/or if they've thought they were right their whole life and everyone they grew up with taught them that way. Aside from a few instances that get magnified (spotlight fallacy) I don't think there is much changing of hearts in things like whether gay people are worthy of marriage, worthy of being called human. Or whether trans* people are worthy of having steady work and a safe transition.

So as the baby-boomers die out, the younger generation (assuming they're much better) should have a higher proportion of the vote, and therefore more power. Not to mention people born in more tolerant times getting in to politics, that should have an impact too.

Or something, I'm tired. Someone else can run with this, or say "Nope, you're wrong, Descan." or ignore it.

Plus, this computer is slow, so I'm waiting for a few moments for me to see what I've written, and that distracts me from my thoughts.

[penguinofhonor]

To your comment regarding LGBT and the negative social implications (and all that other hoopla), well.. uhm..

First off, yes, it is essentially "common knowledge" that we HAVE to accept people for who they are regardless of whatever we may believe (its what is crammed down our throats in school, social media, etc etc ad nauseum).  And that is where the problem for me is. We are forcing people into accepting a certain point of view on a certain topic because it is what we want (or what certain people want), and if people are against it, then they must be x (or y).  "Oh, so and so doesn't agree with me that LGBT people should be protected by the law against unlawful firings, because he is obviously a bigot/ignorant/ or something of the like."

That is the whole optic "progressives" use to argue for social change.  We must allow more of this, and those who say otherwise MUST be racist/homophobes/bigots/what have you. 

The above doesn't even touch on the fact that unfortunately alot of people will never be comfortable with transsexuals (or gays or lesbians).  They can have any numerous amounts of reasons, whether they are legitimate reasons or not, but if they were to voice those opinions, they would be branded something equally as negative.  By doing this, you are literally scaring people to conform to another group's point of view for fear of being branded something socially unacceptable.  And that is why these issues are in the background because people cannot have a serious dialogue on these sort of issues without people pulling out the race/homophobe/bigot cards.  I suppose you could argue that by suppressing people's natural opinions on things like these, you are forcing their displeasure to come out in different ways (your boss is harder on you at work for example).

There is a problem with branding people as bigots and hateful when they're only really guilty of ignorance, yes. But you can't excuse slightly racist/homophobic/sexist/etc things, either, because they still hurt people.

[NinjaBoot]

I think there is a piece of scientific philosophy (that is, philosophy pertaining to science as a whole) that might be apt here. It says, forgive me if I get this wrong, I'm not even in University yet, that a paradigm shift doesn't happen when you finally convince the old guard, the people holding the old view. It happens when the old guard die out, and the new people, new scientists who aren't entrenched in the old system take over.

Since that seems to be saying something about humans and people rather than science in and of itself, I think it can fit here. It's very hard to convince people that they're wrong, especially if they have a vested interest in not being convinced, and/or if they've thought they were right their whole life and everyone they grew up with taught them that way. Aside from a few instances that get magnified (spotlight fallacy) I don't think there is much changing of hearts in things like whether gay people are worthy of marriage, worthy of being called human. Or whether trans* people are worthy of having steady work and a safe transition.

So as the baby-boomers die out, the younger generation (assuming they're much better) should have a higher proportion of the vote, and therefore more power. Not to mention people born in more tolerant times getting in to politics, that should have an impact too.

Or something, I'm tired. Someone else can run with this, or say "Nope, you're wrong, Descan." or ignore it.

Plus, this computer is slow, so I'm waiting for a few moments for me to see what I've written, and that distracts me from my thoughts.

I agree with this, but I would like to also add that this is how our values shift over generations (what we teach or don't teach our kids).  Going from the nuclear families of the 50s to the broken families of today!

[Heron TSG]

Going from the nuclear families of the 50s to the broken families of today!

My 'broken' family is perfectly happy, thank you very much. All the shards.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're saying, NinjaBoot. Are you saying that by calling people who say/do bigoted things 'Bigots', we're forcing them to be bigots?

PS: Something being common knowledge doesn't make it part of common law. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Both of my parents were never as happy and as civil towards one another until after they separated and divorced. So much for the brokenness of broken families.

[Vector]

My grandparents' generation was royally screwed up on both sides of my family.  This generation is doing much better and is far more close-knit.

[Frumple]

Fair warning NB, you're probably about to get piled in on a little. The position you're trying to defend, even if it's in good faith -- and I'm going to assume it is, despite the somewhat antagonistic tone I take -- is not easy to defend, because there is very little value in it.

Anyway, take the tone with a degree of softening. There's no ad hominim involved, but I am definitely attacking the position you're presenting. Still, the point of saying anything at all is to invite dialogue. Let's open the discussion, not close it.

First off, yes, it is essentially "common knowledge" that we HAVE to accept people for who they are regardless of whatever we may believe (its what is crammed down our throats in school, social media, etc etc ad nauseum).  And that is where the problem for me is. We are forcing people into accepting a certain point of view on a certain topic because it is what we want (or what certain people want), and if people are against it, then they must be x (or y).  "Oh, so and so doesn't agree with me that LGBT people should be protected by the law against unlawful firings, because he is obviously a bigot/ignorant/ or something of the like."

One of the big points here is that, in some states, they're not protected. You can be fired because you're LGBT. There's not very many reasons you can protest that everyone shouldn't be protected by law (Specifically, that's unconstitutional, from what I understand, in spirit if not letter. Equal protection.) -- pretty much the only reasons for it is either bigotry or ignorance. That's full stop it, unless you're arguing for total abolition of any laws protecting from unlawful firings.

If there's a third option, please provide it.

But yes, at least when it comes to LGBT, there's not much they can be but X (or Y), because those Xs or Ys are defined by the persons beliefs and actions re: LGBT individuals.

That is the whole optic "progressives" use to argue for social change.  We must allow more of this, and those who say otherwise MUST be racist/homophobes/bigots/what have you.

The point is that the "must be bigots/homophobes" kind of follows logically from protesting the major social issues -- such as LGBT equality -- that progressives tend to support. There's not any -- full stop any -- reason outside of bigotry to support prejudice, especially institutional level prejudice, vs. LGBT people, ferex.

The above doesn't even touch on the fact that unfortunately alot of people will never be comfortable with transsexuals (or gays or lesbians).  They can have any numerous amounts of reasons, whether they are legitimate reasons or not, but if they were to voice those opinions, they would be branded something equally as negative.

One: LGBT is not negative. Period. The only downsides to people who fall under that umbrella come from other people. Bigotry, homophobia actually have major downsides from the person holding such thoughts flowing outward, instead of the other way around.

Two: LGBT don't frakking care if you're comfortable or not -- that's your prerogative, same as if you're not comfortable around people who don't look pretty. That doesn't mean you get to attack them, doesn't mean you get to fire them, doesn't mean you get to persecute them -- not because they're LGBT. That's what they care about and what they want. Equality.

There's only one "legitimate" reason for not being comfortable with LGBT -- and that's not being comfortable with them. Being squicked out is fine. Being squicked out doesn't give you the right to treat people as second class citizens.

By doing this, you are literally scaring people to conform to another group's point of view for fear of being branded something socially unacceptable.  And that is why these issues are in the background because people cannot have a serious dialogue on these sort of issues without people pulling out the race/homophobe/bigot cards.

It's... pretty simple, really. When there's a serious dialogue that can be had without homophobia, bigotry, or ignorance being the root cause of it, then there's discussion to be had. I've personally yet to see any, at all, arguments for the persecution or removal of rights of LGBT that doesn't have its base in one of the three.

I suppose you could argue that by suppressing people's natural opinions on things like these, you are forcing their displeasure to come out in different ways (your boss is harder on you at work for example).

There's no "forcing" involved. Their displeasure is their own damn problem and if it's being expressed on other people, yes, it is the displeased person's fault. There's no excuse for it.

Also, natural doesn't mean right. Remember that.

But yes, props to Penguin for emphasizing that. Ignorance is generally a greater problem than genuine bigotry (though they're both great problems). The former is much easier to fix.