letsgo

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I hope he was wearing a sonky

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

OK so next time you've done your work for the day, try going home early. Do let us know how it goes.

You aren't paid by the hour as long as it suits the company. As soon as it suits you, you're damn well going to sit there until 5pm staring at the ceiling if you have to, THEN you can go home.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

I had the misfortune to have to share an office with a bunch of sales morons. I can recommend Bose idiot-cancelling headphones. What a bunch of selfish noisy fuckwombles.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

So this socialism thing then is totally hypothetical? That no country in the world implements it?

The original post rails against capitalism, and at least implies that things would be better under socialism, but that can't be true if socialism doesn't actually exist.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Same way I'd explain a sciency-type person who doesn't know the difference between there, their and they're.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I don't think I'm trying to make any point. I'm just trying to understand where this stuff successfully plays out.

If you don't want to give a full list that's fine. What would be your top three? Or any three if you prefer.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago

That's actually quite an interesting approach and I wonder what the limits of implications are.

Could we for example imply that Bo and Luke are not only shagging Daisy and each other, but in addition have raped and/or murdered numerous other people? Could we imply they've lynched anyone? If we can, what else could we infer? If not, why not? What limit did we exceed?

Or could we go the other way and imply that they do lots of anti-racism stuff offscreen and that they're using Confederate symbology and names not to glorify it but to mock it? And that they are therefore non-racist and (with additional implications) non-incestuous?

Since one aspect of racism is ascribing negative traits to a particular people group regardless of any evidence that those traits are true (like for example the English thinking of Irish people as stupid, although for the most part I don't think we do that any more), could ascribing incest and racism to citizens of southern states in itself be racist?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (4 children)

No it doesn't. I asked what non-capitalist countries allow you to chase the OP's dreams and you're just asking me a bunch of questions about my opinion of the existence of colleges, and art appreciation.

But OK let's suppose I have to answer your questions before I can get an answer to mine. Same answer for both: actually it's not something I've ever thought about. But I could find out fairly easily, the first anyway, given a list of socialist countries I could do a quick web search to find out if they have colleges. They probably do, but I couldn't name any at the moment. I think it would be tricky to find out whether or not A&H are appreciated under socialism; I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be but I couldn't point to anything that gives an indication one way or another.

Your answer now please: a list of countries where I could, if I lived and so desired, chase those dreams without the limitations of capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (6 children)

I do think that doesn't answer my question.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Giving Birth

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago (12 children)

Must be so awesome for those people living in non-capitalist countries that are able to do all those.

Remind me what countries those are please?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

Well if Brutus took over, Brutey?

 

This relates to the BBC article [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790] which states "the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries".

The UK abolished slavery in 1833. That's 190 years ago. So nobody alive today has a slave, and nobody alive today was a slave.

Dividing £18tn by the number of UK taxpayers (31.6m) gives £569 each. Why do I, who have never owned a slave, have to give £569 to someone who similarly is not a slave?

When I've paid my £569 is that the end of the matter forever or will it just open the floodgates of other similar claims?

Isn't this just a country that isn't doing too well, looking at the UK doing reasonably well (cost of living crisis excluded of course), and saying "oh there's this historical thing that affects nobody alive today but you still have to give us trillions of Sterling"?

Shouldn't payment of reparations be limited to those who still benefit from the slave trade today, and paid to those who still suffer from it?

(Please don't flame me. This is NSQ. I genuinely don't know why this is something I should have to pay. I agree slavery is terrible and condemn it in all its forms, and we were right to abolish it.)

view more: next ›