Youtube as picket line
March 16, 2007 10:31 AM Subscribe
Employees of Miller turn to youtube to express their concerns about pension benefits. [link via Church of the Customer]
That's cute. People still think their employers give a shit about them.
posted by Sukiari at 10:43 AM on March 16, 2007
posted by Sukiari at 10:43 AM on March 16, 2007
That's cute. People still think their employers give a shit about them.
Huh? Isn't the whole idea that they know the company doesn't give a shit about them, but hopefully some customers or investors might?
Anyway, good for them, but I doubt this'll help them any, unfortunately.
posted by equalpants at 10:56 AM on March 16, 2007
Huh? Isn't the whole idea that they know the company doesn't give a shit about them, but hopefully some customers or investors might?
Anyway, good for them, but I doubt this'll help them any, unfortunately.
posted by equalpants at 10:56 AM on March 16, 2007
A union representing 122 employees that filed a gender and age discrimination complaint against the parent company of Miller Brewing Co. in Milwaukee Thursday is using the Internet to garner international support for its cause.
Though the video is in jest, the complaints are serious. The complaints were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Equal Rights Division of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development on behalf of the 122 members of OPEIU, more than 80 percent of whom are female
They lost my support already. While I oppose such discrimination, and support the idea of bringing attention to it, I have to admit Miller has a right to their policies. If true, they are bad policies, but public pressure is legitimate, government force is tyrannical. The last thing a corporation wants is bad press and a pissed off public.
That's cute. People still think their employers give a shit about them.
It's not an employer's place to "give a shit." If it is then it should be a two way street. Do we not use employers for a paycheck? I don't work for free, nor to I work for the glory of the company. I put in my hours, get compensated, and want my free time.
Now this may not apply to all people. I'm sure some people refuse to accept anything more than the minimum wage, and would sacrifice all for their employer. I confess, I'm not one of them. If someone offers me more perks and more money, I'm gone.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 11:30 AM on March 16, 2007
Oh for fuck's sake, must all of you immediately react to the troll bait EACH AND EVERY TIME, despite how obviously simplistic it is?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2007
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2007
Gnostic Novelist, I applaud your stand against tyranny. Just as I applauded when those brave, brave small business owners refused to be bullied into serving niggers.
In case you are too young to remember, "property rights" was a commonly heard reason for doing nothing about racial segregation.
posted by atrazine at 11:40 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
In case you are too young to remember, "property rights" was a commonly heard reason for doing nothing about racial segregation.
posted by atrazine at 11:40 AM on March 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Gnostic Novelist, I applaud your stand against tyranny. Just as I applauded when those brave, brave small business owners refused to be bullied into serving niggers.
I don't think it is tyranny, at least not yet, I think public pressure will cause the company to cave. Hopefully at least.
Once again, supporting the right =/= approving of it. Segregation was wrong due to the fact the government mandated it and supported it. I don't want to force someone to date someone else, I don't want to legislate who can be friends, and I sure don't hard working people to be forced into those things just because they own property. Now would I befriend those people? No. I don't approve of their stances, but they have a right to them. It's pretty easy to just invalidate the rights of a racist, because ironically they are despised in a similar fashion as the groups they hate once were.
Just because someone is a racist doesn't make them a bad person. But that isn't the topic of this thread, and I don't want to derail it.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 11:46 AM on March 16, 2007
I don't think it is tyranny, at least not yet, I think public pressure will cause the company to cave. Hopefully at least.
Once again, supporting the right =/= approving of it. Segregation was wrong due to the fact the government mandated it and supported it. I don't want to force someone to date someone else, I don't want to legislate who can be friends, and I sure don't hard working people to be forced into those things just because they own property. Now would I befriend those people? No. I don't approve of their stances, but they have a right to them. It's pretty easy to just invalidate the rights of a racist, because ironically they are despised in a similar fashion as the groups they hate once were.
Just because someone is a racist doesn't make them a bad person. But that isn't the topic of this thread, and I don't want to derail it.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 11:46 AM on March 16, 2007
>>Just because someone is a racist doesn't make them a bad person.
You must be joking.
posted by SaintCynr at 12:17 PM on March 16, 2007
You must be joking.
posted by SaintCynr at 12:17 PM on March 16, 2007
Just because someone is a racist doesn't make them a bad person.
but it's a damn good start, don't you think?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:24 PM on March 16, 2007
but it's a damn good start, don't you think?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:24 PM on March 16, 2007
You must be joking.
As I said above, I don't want the thread to go off topic. I'll just respond with: I think we all have our faults, and they may be minor to some people and major to others. Homosexuals are neither here nor there to me, they are just people. To some people homosexuals are destined to be condemned to hell, and are disgusting degenerates. People can disagree, I just object to the need to involve government in every disagreement. We all have different worldviews and humans are predisposed to want to use power to influence the world ("If only the world operated the way I want then shit would be set straight").
I can't explain the way others feel. Even those that want to use government to ruin the lives of (insert group/person here). The views of a racist are despicable to me, but my views are despicable to others. I don't think views necessary make a person bad, but how they act on them. Have you ever thought that "some people are just fuckin' stupid?" I have, but I try my best not to act on those feelings and use power to control others.
We all have our faults, and history has taught me that simply going with the crowd and condemning what it condemns is usually a bad path, except for certain cases (such as the use of violence, theft, etc). Oddly enough, when we look at historical horrors, it usually involves the crowd violating these principles, and people go along with it.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 12:29 PM on March 16, 2007
As I said above, I don't want the thread to go off topic. I'll just respond with: I think we all have our faults, and they may be minor to some people and major to others. Homosexuals are neither here nor there to me, they are just people. To some people homosexuals are destined to be condemned to hell, and are disgusting degenerates. People can disagree, I just object to the need to involve government in every disagreement. We all have different worldviews and humans are predisposed to want to use power to influence the world ("If only the world operated the way I want then shit would be set straight").
I can't explain the way others feel. Even those that want to use government to ruin the lives of (insert group/person here). The views of a racist are despicable to me, but my views are despicable to others. I don't think views necessary make a person bad, but how they act on them. Have you ever thought that "some people are just fuckin' stupid?" I have, but I try my best not to act on those feelings and use power to control others.
We all have our faults, and history has taught me that simply going with the crowd and condemning what it condemns is usually a bad path, except for certain cases (such as the use of violence, theft, etc). Oddly enough, when we look at historical horrors, it usually involves the crowd violating these principles, and people go along with it.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 12:29 PM on March 16, 2007
We all have our faults, and history has taught me that simply going with the crowd and condemning what it condemns is usually a bad path,
god, that's all we need ... a libertarian hipster ...
make a rational case for your viewpoint, would you?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:34 PM on March 16, 2007
god, that's all we need ... a libertarian hipster ...
make a rational case for your viewpoint, would you?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:34 PM on March 16, 2007
god, that's all we need ... a libertarian hipster ...
Not a libertarian. Although, I fully understand why one would associate me with them. I'm definitely a conservative though, no doubt.
I'm not sure about the point you need me to elucidate on. If it is the quoted part then I object to the oppression of certain people just because I disagree or belong to the stronger group (if I was around in the 19th century I would have been a hardcore abolitionist, suffragist, and so forth). I am not anti-social, but I have had first hand experience and my years of study have shown that the herd mentality can lead down a dangerous road. And people often use that mentality to excuse themselves from immoral behavior and assume they are special.
Yes, racism is wrong (to me) but I don't want to make my moral view on it into some sort of universal. I like to drink alcohol, if you are American, you know the horrors that sprung up when that "Devil" alcohol was banned or I'm sure you're aware of the persecution certain people faced during the Red Scare. Every time period has its boogeymen or its scapegoats. I just don't assume that I won't one day belong to the other side(s). So I suppose my rational case is simply "Do Unto Others as I would have them do unto me." I don't know if you think that is rational or not, it is more of a personal moral code. But it is not a feeling, it is a reasoned position that goes against my instincts quite often.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 12:42 PM on March 16, 2007
Not a libertarian. Although, I fully understand why one would associate me with them. I'm definitely a conservative though, no doubt.
I'm not sure about the point you need me to elucidate on. If it is the quoted part then I object to the oppression of certain people just because I disagree or belong to the stronger group (if I was around in the 19th century I would have been a hardcore abolitionist, suffragist, and so forth). I am not anti-social, but I have had first hand experience and my years of study have shown that the herd mentality can lead down a dangerous road. And people often use that mentality to excuse themselves from immoral behavior and assume they are special.
Yes, racism is wrong (to me) but I don't want to make my moral view on it into some sort of universal. I like to drink alcohol, if you are American, you know the horrors that sprung up when that "Devil" alcohol was banned or I'm sure you're aware of the persecution certain people faced during the Red Scare. Every time period has its boogeymen or its scapegoats. I just don't assume that I won't one day belong to the other side(s). So I suppose my rational case is simply "Do Unto Others as I would have them do unto me." I don't know if you think that is rational or not, it is more of a personal moral code. But it is not a feeling, it is a reasoned position that goes against my instincts quite often.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 12:42 PM on March 16, 2007
It's not an employer's place to "give a shit." If it is then it should be a two way street. Do we not use employers for a paycheck?
Now this may not apply to all people. I'm sure some people refuse to accept anything more than the minimum wage, and would sacrifice all for their employer.
That's not really accurate, because the equivalent to "people [who] refuse to accept anything more than the minimum wage, and [who] would sacrifice all for their employer" would be a company that refused to pay their people anything less than every penny they made, right up until their profits were down to zero (ie sacrificing all for their employees.)
Now, a proper equivalent to a company that "gives a shit" would be employees who "give a shit"; people who think of their jobs not only as paychecks, but as partners in their own success. So, when a big project comes down the pipeline, we all hunker down and make short-term sacrifices to accomplish the goal we're trying to achieve -- and in return, we're well-compensated and well-rewarded in numerous ways beyond money -- gifts, flexible time, financial support and opportunities, and so on.
And you know what? Lots of companies "give a shit" about their employees by that definition. Mind you, they're usually highly profitable ones that need happy, fulfilled and talented employees to succeed. Perhaps a company like Miller does not feel that they fall into that category; if not, so be it, but that's why unions exist: to protect employees who work at companies that view them as inventory instead of people.
posted by davejay at 12:51 PM on March 16, 2007
Now this may not apply to all people. I'm sure some people refuse to accept anything more than the minimum wage, and would sacrifice all for their employer.
That's not really accurate, because the equivalent to "people [who] refuse to accept anything more than the minimum wage, and [who] would sacrifice all for their employer" would be a company that refused to pay their people anything less than every penny they made, right up until their profits were down to zero (ie sacrificing all for their employees.)
Now, a proper equivalent to a company that "gives a shit" would be employees who "give a shit"; people who think of their jobs not only as paychecks, but as partners in their own success. So, when a big project comes down the pipeline, we all hunker down and make short-term sacrifices to accomplish the goal we're trying to achieve -- and in return, we're well-compensated and well-rewarded in numerous ways beyond money -- gifts, flexible time, financial support and opportunities, and so on.
And you know what? Lots of companies "give a shit" about their employees by that definition. Mind you, they're usually highly profitable ones that need happy, fulfilled and talented employees to succeed. Perhaps a company like Miller does not feel that they fall into that category; if not, so be it, but that's why unions exist: to protect employees who work at companies that view them as inventory instead of people.
posted by davejay at 12:51 PM on March 16, 2007
>>We all have our faults, and history has taught me that simply going with the crowd and condemning what it condemns is usually a bad path except for certain cases (such as the use of violence, theft, etc).
The key is arriving at your code of ethics yourself, not simply substituting the beliefs of the masses for thinking critically about a topic. If you've done that, what others think and do cannot shake nor impugn you or your views, no matter how great their numbers or power.
Racism is always wrong. There is no "well, that's ok" to it, irrespective of the social or economic pressure they might bring to bear to enforce such a tribalist, odious way of thinking.
posted by SaintCynr at 12:51 PM on March 16, 2007
The key is arriving at your code of ethics yourself, not simply substituting the beliefs of the masses for thinking critically about a topic. If you've done that, what others think and do cannot shake nor impugn you or your views, no matter how great their numbers or power.
Racism is always wrong. There is no "well, that's ok" to it, irrespective of the social or economic pressure they might bring to bear to enforce such a tribalist, odious way of thinking.
posted by SaintCynr at 12:51 PM on March 16, 2007
If it is the quoted part then I object to the oppression of certain people just because I disagree or belong to the stronger group
setting down rules for business is not necessarily the oppression of certain people
as a non-corporate non-bigwig you do not belong to the stronger group
whether a group is right or wrong has nothing to do with how strong they are
I am not anti-social, but I have had first hand experience and my years of study have shown that the herd mentality can lead down a dangerous road.
you have yet to demonstrate that opposition to racism is in fact a result of a herd mentality or that government rules that enforce anti-racism in certain business relationships are a result of herd mentality in action
you assume that people are just blindly following the leader instead of having actually thought things through for themselves
you assume that because you've "thought" things through and come up with different conclusions that you're thinking and they aren't
I'm sure you're aware of the persecution certain people faced during the Red Scare. Every time period has its boogeymen or its scapegoats.
saying that an employer should treat its employers equally in regards to race, sex, age, etc is not persecution, is not turning them into boogeymen or scapegoats
there are many businesses started yearly whose owners are eager and more than willing to do business under this "persecution" ... thousands of people graduate from college every year to vie for places in businesses that suffer as "scapegoats"
the fact that you think a society should actually set forth some rules for how things are done through its government is "tyrannical" doesn't explain why the leading businessmen of the world scramble to invest in, work in and profit in such a tyrannical environment, does it?
I don't know if you think that is rational or not,
no, i don't think you're very rational at all
posted by pyramid termite at 1:07 PM on March 16, 2007
setting down rules for business is not necessarily the oppression of certain people
as a non-corporate non-bigwig you do not belong to the stronger group
whether a group is right or wrong has nothing to do with how strong they are
I am not anti-social, but I have had first hand experience and my years of study have shown that the herd mentality can lead down a dangerous road.
you have yet to demonstrate that opposition to racism is in fact a result of a herd mentality or that government rules that enforce anti-racism in certain business relationships are a result of herd mentality in action
you assume that people are just blindly following the leader instead of having actually thought things through for themselves
you assume that because you've "thought" things through and come up with different conclusions that you're thinking and they aren't
I'm sure you're aware of the persecution certain people faced during the Red Scare. Every time period has its boogeymen or its scapegoats.
saying that an employer should treat its employers equally in regards to race, sex, age, etc is not persecution, is not turning them into boogeymen or scapegoats
there are many businesses started yearly whose owners are eager and more than willing to do business under this "persecution" ... thousands of people graduate from college every year to vie for places in businesses that suffer as "scapegoats"
the fact that you think a society should actually set forth some rules for how things are done through its government is "tyrannical" doesn't explain why the leading businessmen of the world scramble to invest in, work in and profit in such a tyrannical environment, does it?
I don't know if you think that is rational or not,
no, i don't think you're very rational at all
posted by pyramid termite at 1:07 PM on March 16, 2007
That's not really accurate, because the equivalent to "people [who] refuse to accept anything more than the minimum wage, and [who] would sacrifice all for their employer" would be a company that refused to pay their people anything less than every penny they made, right up until their profits were down to zero (ie sacrificing all for their employees.)
I agree with you. My point is that we both use each other, and rarely (there are always exceptions) is a party acting from purely noble goals. I can't speak for everyone, but I can say I try to get the most money from my employer, yet want to work less time. I suppose if I were involved in a more congenial occupation (like say working for a Church or clinical research) then that wouldn't be the case. But those are non-profits. Profits are what employers mostly care about and compensation is what employees care about. I see your point and agree.
Now, a proper equivalent to a company that "gives a shit" would be employees who "give a shit"; people who think of their jobs not only as paychecks, but as partners in their own success. So, when a big project comes down the pipeline, we all hunker down and make short-term sacrifices to accomplish the goal we're trying to achieve -- and in return, we're well-compensated and well-rewarded in numerous ways beyond money -- gifts, flexible time, financial support and opportunities, and so on.
Ah, you express a sentiment similar to my previous paragraph. I agree. However, I will note that many people are deadlocked into some really crummy jobs that have no personal value to them ("The Gotta Eat" crowd). I agree with you though, I don't believe every employee is looking to slack off or anything. Those that are involved in noble jobs or want to be team players will max themselves out (I still see compensation as a valid, but notable, motivational tool)
And you know what? Lots of companies "give a shit" about their employees by that definition. Mind you, they're usually highly profitable ones that need happy, fulfilled and talented employees to succeed. Perhaps a company like Miller does not feel that they fall into that category; if not, so be it, but that's why unions exist: to protect employees who work at companies that view them as inventory instead of people.
I wouldn't say they "give a shit" for the sake of it. It's bad business to treat employees like crap. I think the only employer than can truly get away with it is the military.
On your point about unions, only a minority of works belong to unions and while their origins were more clean, unions have become shakedown organizations now (especially with Yellow dog contracts). Unions are a special interest group, but they don't have the best interest of the company, or non-union employees in mind. I think they should be around, because there are some industries that are more nefarious than others and people should always have the right to freedom of association, in my opinion. Our disagreement about unions is not a major point though. I think everything that the employees are doing against miller (except involving the government) is completely justified.
Racism is always wrong. There is no "well, that's ok" to it, irrespective of the social or economic pressure they might bring to bear to enforce such a tribalist, odious way of thinking.
And 50 years ago interracial marriage was wrong. And homosexuality is always wrong. And getting a divorce is always wrong. And having certain views is always wrong. This is the mantra of the absolutist.
Now there might appear to be some inconsistencies in my views. I oppose the initiation of violence, but I am not a pacifist. I can't say "killing is always wrong" because I know war is inevitable. Moral absolutes are a dangerous line to tow. They are easy, but are seemingly always rooted in cultural influence. Yes, it's easy to say interracial marriage is ok now, but imagine the moral absolutes interracial supporters had to go through up to the late 20th century. It wasn't pretty.
I would actually be inclined to agree with you. I feel that racism is always wrong. But I don't think my feelings are enough to persecute a group of people who have done nothing but hold unpopular beliefs.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 1:08 PM on March 16, 2007
I agree with you. My point is that we both use each other, and rarely (there are always exceptions) is a party acting from purely noble goals. I can't speak for everyone, but I can say I try to get the most money from my employer, yet want to work less time. I suppose if I were involved in a more congenial occupation (like say working for a Church or clinical research) then that wouldn't be the case. But those are non-profits. Profits are what employers mostly care about and compensation is what employees care about. I see your point and agree.
Now, a proper equivalent to a company that "gives a shit" would be employees who "give a shit"; people who think of their jobs not only as paychecks, but as partners in their own success. So, when a big project comes down the pipeline, we all hunker down and make short-term sacrifices to accomplish the goal we're trying to achieve -- and in return, we're well-compensated and well-rewarded in numerous ways beyond money -- gifts, flexible time, financial support and opportunities, and so on.
Ah, you express a sentiment similar to my previous paragraph. I agree. However, I will note that many people are deadlocked into some really crummy jobs that have no personal value to them ("The Gotta Eat" crowd). I agree with you though, I don't believe every employee is looking to slack off or anything. Those that are involved in noble jobs or want to be team players will max themselves out (I still see compensation as a valid, but notable, motivational tool)
And you know what? Lots of companies "give a shit" about their employees by that definition. Mind you, they're usually highly profitable ones that need happy, fulfilled and talented employees to succeed. Perhaps a company like Miller does not feel that they fall into that category; if not, so be it, but that's why unions exist: to protect employees who work at companies that view them as inventory instead of people.
I wouldn't say they "give a shit" for the sake of it. It's bad business to treat employees like crap. I think the only employer than can truly get away with it is the military.
On your point about unions, only a minority of works belong to unions and while their origins were more clean, unions have become shakedown organizations now (especially with Yellow dog contracts). Unions are a special interest group, but they don't have the best interest of the company, or non-union employees in mind. I think they should be around, because there are some industries that are more nefarious than others and people should always have the right to freedom of association, in my opinion. Our disagreement about unions is not a major point though. I think everything that the employees are doing against miller (except involving the government) is completely justified.
Racism is always wrong. There is no "well, that's ok" to it, irrespective of the social or economic pressure they might bring to bear to enforce such a tribalist, odious way of thinking.
And 50 years ago interracial marriage was wrong. And homosexuality is always wrong. And getting a divorce is always wrong. And having certain views is always wrong. This is the mantra of the absolutist.
Now there might appear to be some inconsistencies in my views. I oppose the initiation of violence, but I am not a pacifist. I can't say "killing is always wrong" because I know war is inevitable. Moral absolutes are a dangerous line to tow. They are easy, but are seemingly always rooted in cultural influence. Yes, it's easy to say interracial marriage is ok now, but imagine the moral absolutes interracial supporters had to go through up to the late 20th century. It wasn't pretty.
I would actually be inclined to agree with you. I feel that racism is always wrong. But I don't think my feelings are enough to persecute a group of people who have done nothing but hold unpopular beliefs.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 1:08 PM on March 16, 2007
^Sorry about the part in bold, it wasn't mean to be emboldened. Not shouting.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 1:09 PM on March 16, 2007
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 1:09 PM on March 16, 2007
>>And 50 years ago interracial marriage was wrong. And homosexuality is always wrong. And getting a divorce is always wrong. And having certain views is always wrong. This is the mantra of the absolutist.
Racism is always wrong because it substitutes groupthink and stereotype for actual thought and giving each individual an opportunity to prove themself. That's the crux of this.
posted by SaintCynr at 1:20 PM on March 16, 2007
Racism is always wrong because it substitutes groupthink and stereotype for actual thought and giving each individual an opportunity to prove themself. That's the crux of this.
posted by SaintCynr at 1:20 PM on March 16, 2007
Please, stop persecuting the racists. Haven't they been through enough?
posted by found missing at 1:28 PM on March 16, 2007
posted by found missing at 1:28 PM on March 16, 2007
Racism is always wrong because it substitutes groupthink and stereotype for actual thought and giving each individual an opportunity to prove themself. That's the crux of this.
In this case wouldn't groupthink always be wrong? I'm an individualist, so you aren't going to get much of a disagreement from me on the part in bold.
I think where we disagree is on a supposed solution. I don't think they should be forced to be "un-racist" or be forced to associate with people they don't want to in private affairs. This is based on the fact that well all discriminate or have certain preferences, ours just are not racial. I don't associate with a lot of people, for various reasons, none of those reasons have the slightest basis in race. This means the outcome is exactly the same in result (although it may not be in personal feeling) as one based on race.
Would you agree that it is acceptable to dislike people? Now if you dislike racists, don't you dislike them as a group?
Example One:
I don't want to work with, Person X, a conservative.
Example Two.
I don't want to work with, Person X, a (insert race) conservative.
Example Three:
I don't want to be friends with Person Y, he/she is not attractive
Example Four:
I don't want to be friends with Person Y, he/she is (insert race) and not attractive.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 1:31 PM on March 16, 2007
In this case wouldn't groupthink always be wrong? I'm an individualist, so you aren't going to get much of a disagreement from me on the part in bold.
I think where we disagree is on a supposed solution. I don't think they should be forced to be "un-racist" or be forced to associate with people they don't want to in private affairs. This is based on the fact that well all discriminate or have certain preferences, ours just are not racial. I don't associate with a lot of people, for various reasons, none of those reasons have the slightest basis in race. This means the outcome is exactly the same in result (although it may not be in personal feeling) as one based on race.
Would you agree that it is acceptable to dislike people? Now if you dislike racists, don't you dislike them as a group?
Example One:
I don't want to work with, Person X, a conservative.
Example Two.
I don't want to work with, Person X, a (insert race) conservative.
Example Three:
I don't want to be friends with Person Y, he/she is not attractive
Example Four:
I don't want to be friends with Person Y, he/she is (insert race) and not attractive.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 1:31 PM on March 16, 2007
I don't think they should be forced to be "un-racist" or be forced to associate with people they don't want to in private affairs.
doing business is not a private affair
posted by pyramid termite at 1:40 PM on March 16, 2007
doing business is not a private affair
posted by pyramid termite at 1:40 PM on March 16, 2007
Jesus Christ. This thread, not 24 hours old, already contains no less than 40 comments covering your opinions on racism, civil rights, social welfare, politics, religion, gay rights, drugs, pornography, public schooling, the police, affirmative action, and a host of other topics. Are you seriously going to start up again here? Are you in some kind of manic phase?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:49 PM on March 16, 2007
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:49 PM on March 16, 2007
>>Would you agree that it is acceptable to dislike people? Now if you dislike racists, don't you dislike them as a group?
I don't find most blondes attractive. That doesn't mean I practice cognitive miserdom and think that no blonde is. Each is evaluated on their own merit.
Further, there is a huge disparity between liking or disliking an individual because of a behavior or a viewpoint, which is mutable, and a race or physical characteristic, which is for most purposes immutable.
posted by SaintCynr at 1:51 PM on March 16, 2007
I don't find most blondes attractive. That doesn't mean I practice cognitive miserdom and think that no blonde is. Each is evaluated on their own merit.
Further, there is a huge disparity between liking or disliking an individual because of a behavior or a viewpoint, which is mutable, and a race or physical characteristic, which is for most purposes immutable.
posted by SaintCynr at 1:51 PM on March 16, 2007
YouTube: In the online future, everyone will be lame for 15 minutes.
posted by troybob at 1:53 PM on March 16, 2007
posted by troybob at 1:53 PM on March 16, 2007
Are you in some kind of manic phase?
no, he's channeling the ghost of robert heinlein
posted by pyramid termite at 1:57 PM on March 16, 2007
no, he's channeling the ghost of robert heinlein
posted by pyramid termite at 1:57 PM on March 16, 2007
doing business is not a private affair
Can you trace the origins of this conclusion? I disagree, perhaps the source can be pinpointed off the bat.
P1: Human beings are social animals
P2: Life involves human interaction
P3: Some human action comes from personal choice for personal benefit
P4: Human interaction can lead to alliances between parties for mutual benefit.
P4: Some interaction occurs within a sphere of what is owned by society, within a border (the government).
C: The spheres of what is owned by society is different and distinct than that which is owned by an individual or individuals.
I don't find most blondes attractive. That doesn't mean I practice cognitive miserdom and think that no blonde is. Each is evaluated on their own merit.
Further, there is a huge disparity between liking or disliking an individual because of a behavior or a viewpoint, which is mutable, and a race or physical characteristic, which is for most purposes immutable.
I agree. But I think we would probably disagree on what to do, or not to do, against those who do not evaluate blonds as individuals. I agree with your posts, but as listed above, it seems all the disagreement comes from proposed solutions, or a preference for an objective/hands off approach.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 2:02 PM on March 16, 2007
Can you trace the origins of this conclusion? I disagree, perhaps the source can be pinpointed off the bat.
P1: Human beings are social animals
P2: Life involves human interaction
P3: Some human action comes from personal choice for personal benefit
P4: Human interaction can lead to alliances between parties for mutual benefit.
P4: Some interaction occurs within a sphere of what is owned by society, within a border (the government).
C: The spheres of what is owned by society is different and distinct than that which is owned by an individual or individuals.
I don't find most blondes attractive. That doesn't mean I practice cognitive miserdom and think that no blonde is. Each is evaluated on their own merit.
Further, there is a huge disparity between liking or disliking an individual because of a behavior or a viewpoint, which is mutable, and a race or physical characteristic, which is for most purposes immutable.
I agree. But I think we would probably disagree on what to do, or not to do, against those who do not evaluate blonds as individuals. I agree with your posts, but as listed above, it seems all the disagreement comes from proposed solutions, or a preference for an objective/hands off approach.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 2:02 PM on March 16, 2007
Segregation was wrong due to the fact the government mandated it and supported it.
Wahwaaaa?
posted by furtive at 2:08 PM on March 16, 2007
Wahwaaaa?
posted by furtive at 2:08 PM on March 16, 2007
Can you trace the origins of this conclusion?
miller beer is selling its wares to the public ... it is offering employment to the public ... it is in fact, a publicly held company
therefore how it conducts its business is a matter of public concern and to a degree, subject to government (public) regulation
the benefits of running a profit-making corporation that is subject to this regulation far outweighs any "oppression" involved
you are welcome to explain how miller beer could sell zillions of bottles of beer in privacy
posted by pyramid termite at 2:18 PM on March 16, 2007
miller beer is selling its wares to the public ... it is offering employment to the public ... it is in fact, a publicly held company
therefore how it conducts its business is a matter of public concern and to a degree, subject to government (public) regulation
the benefits of running a profit-making corporation that is subject to this regulation far outweighs any "oppression" involved
you are welcome to explain how miller beer could sell zillions of bottles of beer in privacy
posted by pyramid termite at 2:18 PM on March 16, 2007
you are welcome to explain how miller beer could sell zillions of bottles of beer in privacy
Privacy =/= private.
We all are public figures, in the sense that we are all social. Even hermits need to exchange food on many occasions. In the United States, private property is seen as a right. Privacy is something totally different. The breakdown is:
Government owned (hence taxpayer owned supposedly, although that can often be a crock)
Private owned (not government owned, but can be driven by profit or non-profit motives)
Just the very right to sell beer, was denied not to long ago, oddly, using the same reasoning you use.
In the end it is a linguistic disagreement, as well as a consistency one. Using the general view you lay out, 51% can pretty much own everyone else. But I can already tell debating the issue would wind up at a dead end because of moral differences. I'll just save you the time.
Hopefully you are consistent though, and support the banning or excessive regulation of everything that a majority happens to disagree with in terms of businesses.
If we want to be really technical, it can apply to single individuals. We are interconnected. This internet I use, This computer, my food, my ashtray, my books, everything was produced by others but consumed by me. We all depend on each other, but I don't see why it must follow that we own each other.
Where is the fraud?
Where is the use of force?
Where if the theft?
If Miller is so bad why do the employees work there? Can bad relationships be regulated by the public because lovers don't like what other lovers are doing?
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 2:26 PM on March 16, 2007
Privacy =/= private.
We all are public figures, in the sense that we are all social. Even hermits need to exchange food on many occasions. In the United States, private property is seen as a right. Privacy is something totally different. The breakdown is:
Government owned (hence taxpayer owned supposedly, although that can often be a crock)
Private owned (not government owned, but can be driven by profit or non-profit motives)
Just the very right to sell beer, was denied not to long ago, oddly, using the same reasoning you use.
In the end it is a linguistic disagreement, as well as a consistency one. Using the general view you lay out, 51% can pretty much own everyone else. But I can already tell debating the issue would wind up at a dead end because of moral differences. I'll just save you the time.
Hopefully you are consistent though, and support the banning or excessive regulation of everything that a majority happens to disagree with in terms of businesses.
If we want to be really technical, it can apply to single individuals. We are interconnected. This internet I use, This computer, my food, my ashtray, my books, everything was produced by others but consumed by me. We all depend on each other, but I don't see why it must follow that we own each other.
Where is the fraud?
Where is the use of force?
Where if the theft?
If Miller is so bad why do the employees work there? Can bad relationships be regulated by the public because lovers don't like what other lovers are doing?
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 2:26 PM on March 16, 2007
troll v. metafilter
I'm simply engaging in discussion. I don't seek to regulate you. If you think I am a troll then you are free to not debate. Although, the troll accusation is pretty common amongst that can't actually debate. I use to fall pray to tossing it around on a hardware forum (I'm a pcguy, those who attest to the superiority of Macs are trolls).
In the end, you are free to not discuss issues with me. As I am free to not discuss them with you. No sense in creating drama. Which you, ironically, create by posting things that require a response, and the response requires a response, and the response to the response requires a response, and so forth.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 2:30 PM on March 16, 2007
I'm simply engaging in discussion. I don't seek to regulate you. If you think I am a troll then you are free to not debate. Although, the troll accusation is pretty common amongst that can't actually debate. I use to fall pray to tossing it around on a hardware forum (I'm a pcguy, those who attest to the superiority of Macs are trolls).
In the end, you are free to not discuss issues with me. As I am free to not discuss them with you. No sense in creating drama. Which you, ironically, create by posting things that require a response, and the response requires a response, and the response to the response requires a response, and so forth.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 2:30 PM on March 16, 2007
At least we can all agree that racists are bad people.
posted by found missing at 2:42 PM on March 16, 2007
posted by found missing at 2:42 PM on March 16, 2007
There's no particular reason I'm asking in this thread, but isn't there a killfile script for metafilter? What was that again?
posted by peep at 2:45 PM on March 16, 2007
posted by peep at 2:45 PM on March 16, 2007
At least we can all agree that racists are bad people.
How about "we can all agree that racism is something that should disappear from society?"
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 2:46 PM on March 16, 2007
How about "we can all agree that racism is something that should disappear from society?"
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 2:46 PM on March 16, 2007
Hopefully you are consistent though, and support the banning or excessive regulation of everything that a majority happens to disagree with in terms of businesses.
nice straw man ... i've yet to state anything as simplistic and as ludicrous as "Using the general view you lay out, 51% can pretty much own everyone else."
no, civilization is a complicated compromise between the private and the public and the rights of the majority and of various minorities
i'm afraid it tends to be too complicated for a person like yourself who prefers to think in black and white and likes to utterly evade the main points his debating opponents offer
Where is the fraud?
Where is the use of force?
Where if the theft?
where is the part where i used any of those phrases?
while we're at it - where is the oppression?
where is the scapegoating?
where is the tyranny of the majority that the miller beer corporation has been so willing to make money under?
you've yet to explain how a downtrodden and oppressed minority like miller beer can be making money hand over foot in this country
I'm simply engaging in discussion. I don't seek to regulate you. If you think I am a troll then you are free to not debate.
what you're actually doing is spewing your opinions over metafilter whether they're germane to the thread or not
example - no one has accused miller of racism and yet you've been discussing the "right" to be racist all through this thread
and then you post a controversial statement and a link to plessy v. ferguson which doesn't have jackshit to do with the controversy at hand
that, sir, is trollish behavior
No sense in creating drama. Which you, ironically, create by posting things that require a response, and the response requires a response, and the response to the response requires a response, and so forth.
as long as a cogent response isn't required, i don't see why you'd have a problem with that
posted by pyramid termite at 3:06 PM on March 16, 2007
nice straw man ... i've yet to state anything as simplistic and as ludicrous as "Using the general view you lay out, 51% can pretty much own everyone else."
no, civilization is a complicated compromise between the private and the public and the rights of the majority and of various minorities
i'm afraid it tends to be too complicated for a person like yourself who prefers to think in black and white and likes to utterly evade the main points his debating opponents offer
Where is the fraud?
Where is the use of force?
Where if the theft?
where is the part where i used any of those phrases?
while we're at it - where is the oppression?
where is the scapegoating?
where is the tyranny of the majority that the miller beer corporation has been so willing to make money under?
you've yet to explain how a downtrodden and oppressed minority like miller beer can be making money hand over foot in this country
I'm simply engaging in discussion. I don't seek to regulate you. If you think I am a troll then you are free to not debate.
what you're actually doing is spewing your opinions over metafilter whether they're germane to the thread or not
example - no one has accused miller of racism and yet you've been discussing the "right" to be racist all through this thread
and then you post a controversial statement and a link to plessy v. ferguson which doesn't have jackshit to do with the controversy at hand
that, sir, is trollish behavior
No sense in creating drama. Which you, ironically, create by posting things that require a response, and the response requires a response, and the response to the response requires a response, and so forth.
as long as a cogent response isn't required, i don't see why you'd have a problem with that
posted by pyramid termite at 3:06 PM on March 16, 2007
nice straw man ... i've yet to state anything as simplistic and as ludicrous as "Using the general view you lay out, 51% can pretty much own everyone else."
I didn't say that. I was making a comment about philosophical consistency. I will respond to the rest of your post if you want. But we, that is both of us, are taking this thread a little of track I suppose. Do you want to continue or should we agree to disagree? How open are you to changing your views? I'm looking for my views to evolve. I suppose we should not subject the entire community to this issue. My email address is gnosticnovelist777@yahoo.com if anyone wants to seriously debate the issues presented in this thread, I welcome you to e-mail me. I just think maybe I am at fault for a serious thread derail.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 3:13 PM on March 16, 2007
I didn't say that. I was making a comment about philosophical consistency. I will respond to the rest of your post if you want. But we, that is both of us, are taking this thread a little of track I suppose. Do you want to continue or should we agree to disagree? How open are you to changing your views? I'm looking for my views to evolve. I suppose we should not subject the entire community to this issue. My email address is gnosticnovelist777@yahoo.com if anyone wants to seriously debate the issues presented in this thread, I welcome you to e-mail me. I just think maybe I am at fault for a serious thread derail.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 3:13 PM on March 16, 2007
I didn't say that.
that was a direct quotation
I was making a comment about philosophical consistency.
you can't even remember what you've written from one post to the next, mr consistent
bye
posted by pyramid termite at 3:20 PM on March 16, 2007
that was a direct quotation
I was making a comment about philosophical consistency.
you can't even remember what you've written from one post to the next, mr consistent
bye
posted by pyramid termite at 3:20 PM on March 16, 2007
nice straw man ... i've yet to state anything as simplistic and as ludicrous as "Using the general view you lay out, 51% can pretty much own everyone else."
Sigh, why must you resort to sophistry? I'm posting in the same thread and am reading what I wrote. You keep, rather I should say I feel you keep trying to one-up me rhetorically, or as some would say "show who has the biggest cock." Most of the community agrees with you, and I hold an unpopular view. I don't see the need for rhetorical flourishes. It isn't as if we have a bunch of fence sitters at play.
You have my e-mail address and if you want to discuss this you are welcome to contact me, and I will respond to each and every point you make (which will be easier if you writer in propositional forum).
If you just want to show off then I can contribute to your glory and say "YOU WIN." "Corporations are evil" "Your views are superior" Your choice. My views may be wrong, but I have no problem admitting my views are not the truth just because they are my views.
gnosticnovelist777@yahooo.com
You have the addy.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 3:25 PM on March 16, 2007
Sigh, why must you resort to sophistry? I'm posting in the same thread and am reading what I wrote. You keep, rather I should say I feel you keep trying to one-up me rhetorically, or as some would say "show who has the biggest cock." Most of the community agrees with you, and I hold an unpopular view. I don't see the need for rhetorical flourishes. It isn't as if we have a bunch of fence sitters at play.
You have my e-mail address and if you want to discuss this you are welcome to contact me, and I will respond to each and every point you make (which will be easier if you writer in propositional forum).
If you just want to show off then I can contribute to your glory and say "YOU WIN." "Corporations are evil" "Your views are superior" Your choice. My views may be wrong, but I have no problem admitting my views are not the truth just because they are my views.
gnosticnovelist777@yahooo.com
You have the addy.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 3:25 PM on March 16, 2007
Yikes: writer should be write. I made a lot of typos this week.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 3:27 PM on March 16, 2007
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 3:27 PM on March 16, 2007
Back in the olden days of the industrial revolution the Carl Zeiss Foundation proved that by giving a shit about its employees they had a better company.
posted by Sukiari at 5:54 PM on March 16, 2007
posted by Sukiari at 5:54 PM on March 16, 2007
That's cute. People still think their employers give a shit about them.
You must live in the U.S.
That's cute. People still think snarky = cool.
You must not live in the U.S.
posted by wfc123 at 5:55 PM on March 16, 2007
You must live in the U.S.
That's cute. People still think snarky = cool.
You must not live in the U.S.
posted by wfc123 at 5:55 PM on March 16, 2007
Oh great! Two great trolls that taste great together (not really, they actually taste like lint)
posted by blasdelf at 6:39 PM on March 16, 2007
posted by blasdelf at 6:39 PM on March 16, 2007
(not really, they actually taste like lint)
Less filling?
posted by dirigibleman at 7:14 PM on March 16, 2007
Less filling?
posted by dirigibleman at 7:14 PM on March 16, 2007
Less filling?
Yeah, plus their drivel just sort of accumulates up in their troll buffer until they find a thread to restate their quasi-contrarian semi-argument in forty times, and then it's just lame. Kind of like when you're looking for a quarter and suddenly realize that there's several belly buttons worth of lint in your pockets.
At least SCDB and dios normally have something they're actually trying to say, even if they're occasionally misguided. These dudes? Just your average usenet strawman constructors.
posted by blasdelf at 7:37 PM on March 16, 2007
Yeah, plus their drivel just sort of accumulates up in their troll buffer until they find a thread to restate their quasi-contrarian semi-argument in forty times, and then it's just lame. Kind of like when you're looking for a quarter and suddenly realize that there's several belly buttons worth of lint in your pockets.
At least SCDB and dios normally have something they're actually trying to say, even if they're occasionally misguided. These dudes? Just your average usenet strawman constructors.
posted by blasdelf at 7:37 PM on March 16, 2007
Oh hell. Companies aren't individuals, and are only given the rights of individuals because of faulty rulings in the past. For all the crap Andrew Jackson put this country through, even he knew that treating large organizations as if they were legal entities on the level of a person is wrong, and I smile every time I pass a $20 bill because of it.
Hopefully you are consistent though, and support the banning or excessive regulation of everything that a majority happens to disagree with in terms of businesses.
Sure. Companies are not individuals, and they don't have the rights to unpopular opinions because they're... companies. There's such a thing as a public good, and that's why we regulate the economy. Because individuals have one voice, but when an individual owns a majority in a company that can fuck over a lot of people, that's a problem that extends far beyond one jerk's weird prejudices. So we, or our elected officials, come to a consensus on what works. We might make mistakes in our consensus, but individuals make mistakes, too.
This isn't even the issue here, though. This is an appeal from employees of a company to the public eye, not even to the legislative branch. It lets executives, shareholders, and members of the public act as they see fit in reaction to what the employees see as injustice. That's pretty damn individually empowering.
posted by mikeh at 10:34 PM on March 16, 2007
Hopefully you are consistent though, and support the banning or excessive regulation of everything that a majority happens to disagree with in terms of businesses.
Sure. Companies are not individuals, and they don't have the rights to unpopular opinions because they're... companies. There's such a thing as a public good, and that's why we regulate the economy. Because individuals have one voice, but when an individual owns a majority in a company that can fuck over a lot of people, that's a problem that extends far beyond one jerk's weird prejudices. So we, or our elected officials, come to a consensus on what works. We might make mistakes in our consensus, but individuals make mistakes, too.
This isn't even the issue here, though. This is an appeal from employees of a company to the public eye, not even to the legislative branch. It lets executives, shareholders, and members of the public act as they see fit in reaction to what the employees see as injustice. That's pretty damn individually empowering.
posted by mikeh at 10:34 PM on March 16, 2007
Am I the only one who thinks Gnostic Novelist makes some valid points?
posted by MrBobaFett at 12:53 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by MrBobaFett at 12:53 PM on March 17, 2007
That doesn't mean he's not a bad person.
posted by found missing at 1:18 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by found missing at 1:18 PM on March 17, 2007
« Older Would you like fries with that? | B3ta Bumper Book of Sick Jokes Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by DU at 10:41 AM on March 16, 2007