Metal Reviews

Mau mau land? *vomits* Cincinnati may be segregated as fuck but saying crime is an issue solely... You're baiting me, aren't you?

Certain ones? You used pretty general terms to describe certain corporations. Generalize? You were the one who was conflating CEOs with business owners a few pages back, no? Archaic examples? Maybe for the West my examples seem archaic but they are the lives of countless individuals across the world and the foundational injustices in those examples are implicit through the techniques still practiced today. I'd still stick to the claim that they are relevant in the U.S. but you simply disregard the treatment of illegal immigrants, Wal-mart workers, the unemployed and countless other unfree laborers simply because they have a house and a car as if that justified oppressive treatment. Still relevant and hence not archaic if you could apply some reflective fucking judgment once in a while. Propagandists? I post links from NPR and random newspapers. I don't even link to In These Times or The Nation. And I am a commie :/

First off, I did no such thing if I failed to distinguish between the two, it wasn't to proselytize like you it was because I failed to do so, big deal. Secondly, and if memory serves me correctly you stated something along the lines, that a small business owner and even further generalizing that a corporation whose owner had begotten some semblance of wealth did so under legitimate means, allocated very little or even acted under a criminal auspice in managing his company. AKA the typical demonization of the rich by Marxists with an ulterior motive. Let me start off by saying I'n all for workers rights, but if a SMALL business owner eventually transitions into ownership of whatever successful enterprise he endeavors on, risks fortune, spends the time to make profits, and employs people then what is your complaint?

I read a lot about your tear eyed speeches about poor workers, and since I work for Walmart I'd say I account for some of your dull tirades. But overall, even with the multiple flaws in our economic system, and even with the bullshit you falsely try to equivocate with our system to the outlandish 3rd world and archaic examples you use to suit your purposes, we still have far more regulations, safeguards, and sense to protect our workforce as opposed to your Red brothers in China and Soviet Russia. All I have to say is if you care for the 3rd world as much as your sermons declare, then quit your college work and lead a soviet styled revolution in Bolivia or some shit, your words about workers rights are just that words.

And you truly think that your company resisting democratic measures in order to assure that the workers they hire are not guaranteed a living wage is irrelevant to our current historical situation?

My college work is not distinct from workers' rights. Teaching students about such issues is, I obviously think, comparable to working with actual workers. I wish I could do something like Chuck but I haven't had opportunities. The only reason I do what I do is because of the professors that taught me. I still attend protests here and I hope to change the minds of Americans. I don't know why I have to live in Bolivia or wherever in order to make a difference. All these issues are still relevant in America as I've been saying. I don't have to leave here to find problems to solve.

The USSR had daycare for every workers' child before their collapse; China radically educated their people; there are countless other examples of radical social welfare programs in these countries yet I still refuse to defend them, but I love how you tout Glenn Beck bullshit as if pointing to the mistakes of these countries negates all the positive as if the U.S. never wiped out their indigenous population or waged war on countries for oil and profits. I digress, but you mentioned the USSR and China as if that was supposed to shut me up. Not to mention the very fact that the US has all those safeguards for workers is because of Marxists like myself who participated in unions, challenging companies. It's not like US Steel used Pinkerton Guards for parades to celebrate how they were going to increase regulations in their factories.

'Nuff said.

Remember that governmental collapse nullifies all past accomplishments as we spiral into oblivion in the coming years .

Trapt, I like you; you are a decent guy, but you are just wrong.
Wrong about politics and wrong about what Steve was talking about. Nobody is being oppressed here, not these days, and not for quite some time now, except for in the minds of various losers parasites and lunatics.

He was alluding to the American population having their prioities all mixed up, not passing a judgement on corporations. At least that is what I took from it.
One thing I have observed about Steve is he is no fan of Big Corporations; if you had been paying attention, you'd know this.

I was being facetious and he was the one who made comments about me. I figured calling him a 'pussy' would point to the fact that I wasn't being serious.

Well, Steve should expect people to bait like Walnut does; it is pretty easy.

This is the fundamental point of disagreement, I think. You don't think all the poor/homeless in this country are oppressed? Those who can't pay for health insurance?

It seems like you're adopting the position that people are poor because of some fault of theirs, which is "just wrong".

Really?
Some are some aren't...
whose fault is it that they are poor, then?
See oppression means being held down. Who is being held down, by who and how?
I am not talking about less than perfect circumstances (which can almost always be overcome with a little motivation, the desire for a better life and the will to take the necessary steps to make it happen, not to mention the many programs that exist set up to help the poor ), but actual oppression.
Examples please.

You can't overcome being prejudiced for your skin color with a little motivation to pull yourself up by your boot straps.

Workers have no say in the job market. There is a surplus amount of labor and hence workers have little say in where they work insofar as jobs aren't plenty and hence must keep what they are able to find. Which that would be fine because nobody orchestrates surplus labor (I secretly think capitalism thrives on surplus labor for these very reasons but that doesn't have to be part of my argument.), but the problem arises now that workers have little say because they don't want to lose their jobs you have their rights as workers being quashed of collective bargaining and organizing. Unions are or once were democratic bodies and to eliminate their possibility is to repress freedoms which America should champion. The same reasons that they can do that make it possible for them to cut benefits (which is happening), freeze wage increases, hire people for less from the start, cut the number of workers while pushing the remaining workforce harder which has resulted in record productivity rates as the workforce is being trimmed. I think for many of those things you would simply respond that "well, companies are cutting losses in tough times" which isn't really an adequate answer because I don't think many of those constraints are going to be lifted when the economy does bounce back. Those liberties or benefits have been lost and will have to be fought for to be regained. And if this was simply about maintaining the level of productivity pre-recession then why are workers being pushed to produce more than they had then prior to the recession when the economy was booming? Now that workers have shown that they can work that hard do you think that companies will accept any less? If workers resist in the form of slowdowns, so that they aren't being forced to do the job of two individuals, they lack collective power and there is a vast number of people waiting to replace them. Hence, they are tied to the machines which they work on, they are tethered to companies which overwork them if they would like to eat.

Women are systemically oppressed in countless ways. Stigmatization is the largest one but it is being dissolved through generational shifts. However, domestic violence and rape still occur at alarming rates. Murders resulting from domestic violence can't be calculated because in courts it is always labeled simply murder. Not necessarily oppression just yet but I think I can get there with it. Women still hold subservient roles to men. Cultural lines like calling people pussies or bitch are still laced with demeaning someone by relating them to females. This subservient role arises in the workplace. Sexual harassment obviously but sexual harassment is not systemic oppression even if the system perpetuates a system which encourages that behavior. Women are however paid less on the dollar than men. That is a form of oppression insofar as they are being constrained materially in their paychecks despite doing equal work. Cultural oppression results from objectification in that women are often seen as nothing but breasts and a hole by men. Being objectified is philosophically equated to being unfree in that when you are just an object you are viewed as not being able to posit your autonomy. You lack freedom insofar as people will always treat you as simply a means. All your relations to others are permeated with an inherent inequality in that you exist solely for them and not for yourself.

And then race. There are still inequalities of segregation in schools which often divides racially but is often times rooted in economic divisions. There are unequal access to jobs, universities and other necessities such as loans or mortgages for minorities yet I would still want to point to the economic for the cause of those issues. I think similar arguments about the unfreedom of being raced can be drawn from what I said about objectification. That probably didn't convince those unfamiliar with existentialism a la Sartre or de Beauvoir so I won't repeat it in terms of Fanon and race.

Pakistan is the first country to recognize transgender on official documentation
Obama's support of a heinous mine in Bangladesh
Fox News is still at iteven after Barry releases his birth certificate because the certificate is "what [the White House] says" is Barry's birth certificate and could possibly not be or something like that. I don't know what those fuckers think when they are writing.

Says the Keynesian economist!

Um, really? The first?

afaik you can choose between male or female in Canada but there's no middle option.

What other country lets you choose "other" beyond simply male or female?

My internet sucks too badly to watch the video in the link, maybe it says??

Not my most knowledgeable topic, but does there need to be? In the recent UK census here trans people were instructed to put the sex they recognise themselves as, whatever their birth certificate says. Ticking both or neither was also allowed. I suppose the situation there with large numbers of eunuchs is different, but still.

Of course, being against both ID cards and censuses (censii?) in general means I don't see why people should have to declare any aspect of their identity to the state. Categorising people like this in Pakistan, hardly a progressive state, is pretty suspicious, no?

Ummm ticking both or neither means you still have to conform to a binary by recognizing that you either are not included or have to divide your identity across two boxes. The problem with sex is that if it is simply genital then there are 16 forms or something like that which genitalia can take on and if it is asking gender than gender is obviously not simply two groups. I think the extra box goes along way to challenging the binary and rather than having to recognize themselves as either against or outside of the binary, having your own box recognizes that you are just you.

Categorizing people is not inherently evil. If they use this categorization to put people in ghettoes or commit genocide then yes but what does the state knowing that these people are out there result in harm to those people. If anything people can be more open about it possibly if the state recognizes it and defends it. How can you be opposed to govt-issued IDs?

I suppose... something about it rankles, though. And why on earth should you have to carry a card proving who you are?

Jesus Christ, is there not one post in this thread were you are not advocating for more state power? What's next Trapt do you want cameras in everyones house now?