Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
Lmao. You sentence is saying everything 
So:
1. This guy - who is a transclass - went from working as a labor force, to owning the factory.
2. This guy does NOT work there anymore as a labor force he is now the CEO or owner of the building.
3. You just said that this gus was able to step UP, meaning that there is a step down which are the employee who are still working there (this says a lot about the way you see the working force)
So those working force went from having a boss to having a new boss a little bit more knowledgable about their working conditions.
But what you don't understand is that now, this guy's interests are not the same as his working force anymore, its his business. Because if he loses his business, he loses money. Which means that BY DEFAULT the interests of the working force and this guys just DIVERGED (EVEN if this guy has good intentions). In short, its just a question of time before the apparition of a clash between the two sets of interests. It might not happen now, it could happen in a few years, but it WILL happen because this guy, despite coming from the working class, is now assimilating the social attributes of the upper class ihe is now appart of.
That's what being transclass means.
For the working force, almost nothing will change, they will STILL be "employees" by a differnt partie meaning that what I asked you there:
.. is NOT what is happening in that case. The guys CHANGED his status and is not working as a working force anymore. Meaning that the working force are STILL in danger of being stripped of their working rights by a bad choice from the CEO or the owner.
So I ask you again in a different way this time, in you perfect system:
Can a group of "employees" working as a LABOR FORCE in a factory own said business when they are STILL working in it ?
So:
1. This guy - who is a transclass - went from working as a labor force, to owning the factory.
2. This guy does NOT work there anymore as a labor force he is now the CEO or owner of the building.
3. You just said that this gus was able to step UP, meaning that there is a step down which are the employee who are still working there (this says a lot about the way you see the working force)
So those working force went from having a boss to having a new boss a little bit more knowledgable about their working conditions.
But what you don't understand is that now, this guy's interests are not the same as his working force anymore, its his business. Because if he loses his business, he loses money. Which means that BY DEFAULT the interests of the working force and this guys just DIVERGED (EVEN if this guy has good intentions). In short, its just a question of time before the apparition of a clash between the two sets of interests. It might not happen now, it could happen in a few years, but it WILL happen because this guy, despite coming from the working class, is now assimilating the social attributes of the upper class ihe is now appart of.
That's what being transclass means.
For the working force, almost nothing will change, they will STILL be "employees" by a differnt partie meaning that what I asked you there:
.. is NOT what is happening in that case. The guys CHANGED his status and is not working as a working force anymore. Meaning that the working force are STILL in danger of being stripped of their working rights by a bad choice from the CEO or the owner.
So I ask you again in a different way this time, in you perfect system:
Can a group of "employees" working as a LABOR FORCE in a factory own said business when they are STILL working in it ?
H
Lmao. You sentence is saying everything
So:
1. This guy - who is a transclass - went from working as a labor force, to owning the factory.
2. This guy does NOT work there anymore as a labor force he is now the CEO or owner of the building.
3. You just said that this gus was able to step UP, meaning that there is a step down which are the employee who are still working there (this says a lot about the way you see the working force)
So those working force went from having a boss to having a new boss a little bit more knowledgable about their working conditions.
But what you don't understand is that now, this guy's interests are not the same as his working force anymore, its his business. Because if he loses his business, he loses money. Which means that BY DEFAULT the interests of the working force and this guys just DIVERGED (EVEN if this guy has good intentions). In short, its just a question of time before the apparition of a clash between the two sets of interests. It might not happen now, it could happen in a few years, but it WILL happen because this guy, despite coming from the working class, is now assimilating the social attributes of the upper class ihe is now appart of.
That's what being transclass means.
For the working force, almost nothing will change, they will STILL be "employees" by a differnt partie meaning that what I asked you there:
So:
1. This guy - who is a transclass - went from working as a labor force, to owning the factory.
2. This guy does NOT work there anymore as a labor force he is now the CEO or owner of the building.
3. You just said that this gus was able to step UP, meaning that there is a step down which are the employee who are still working there (this says a lot about the way you see the working force)
So those working force went from having a boss to having a new boss a little bit more knowledgable about their working conditions.
But what you don't understand is that now, this guy's interests are not the same as his working force anymore, its his business. Because if he loses his business, he loses money. Which means that BY DEFAULT the interests of the working force and this guys just DIVERGED (EVEN if this guy has good intentions). In short, its just a question of time before the apparition of a clash between the two sets of interests. It might not happen now, it could happen in a few years, but it WILL happen because this guy, despite coming from the working class, is now assimilating the social attributes of the upper class ihe is now appart of.
That's what being transclass means.
For the working force, almost nothing will change, they will STILL be "employees" by a differnt partie meaning that what I asked you there:
First of all there will ALWAYS be an hierarchy. People improve their selves through life. A baby, a kid, a teenager needs their parents to live and learn things that in the future will allow them to work and be independent. And they won't be independent from the day one of work. They will have a long journey learning how to work, improving being more productive therefore raising their salary. That's why old people usually earns more than young people. They have the skills and knowledge for being more productive and therefore are in higher ranks in hierarchy.
Second, no he doesn't necessarily have better knowledge just because he came from the working class. One story about him when he just became the owner is that he knew all the dirty of the company. He knew who used to work well. Who didn't. Who used to steal from the company. Who was corrupted. And he fired 7 employees for that reason on his first day or so. Then the high staff that already worked with the previous owner told him that they were aware of everything but he couldn't just go out firing people like that or their business wouldn't work. In that moment he realized he would have to LEARN how to manager a company and he went to study about it. So the previous owner was a better boss than him until he learned what the previous owner already knew. And even coming from the working class he didn't knew what was the best either for the company or for the workers. Unfortunately I don't remember him saying anything about hiring back those employees.
Another story is how he had to fire an employee that had 3 kids instead of one that had none. If you ask most of people who you would fire they would say the one that has no kids without any further questions. But he went to look the numbers of each. The one with the kid was a bad employee. Got late missed days and got out earlier. Yes probably because he had to take care of something of the kids. While the other one was the perfect example of employee. Always on time, good work and very productive. So the choice was obvious to him. He had to keep the good employer and maintain his business instead of keeping the bad one and risking going bankruptcy and then instead of firing 1 employee with family he would have to fire every employee of the company.
And that's why working class can't take business. They don't understand those principles and would go bankruptcy in no time.
Who needs to take care of an employee interest is not his boss but himself. Employee have to be free to negotiate with their boss their salary and working conditions. And if they can't find an agreement he has to be free to go and choose another company or profession to work.
Maybe, yes. I don't remember seeing anyone negating that.
When they can* (you forgot that part of the sentence)
Are you comparing the labor forces with babies here ?
Can you show me a source of that affirmation ?
Because I found a report saying exactly the opposite :
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/12/14/the-annual-earnings-of-older-workers/
Again, do you have data supporting this claim ?
So you are telling me that - based on his own judgement of what a good employee is or not - his first act as a new owner of the compagny that he bought to help the labor force there was to fire SEVEN members of said labor force ?
And you want me to actually tell you that this guy is a good example to follow because he "learned from his errors" ?
Indeed, usually when you respect the labor forces, you don't fire it based on a whim. Anyone can understand that. This guys does not know what was the best to do because he didn't learn, the guys did that because he followed EXACTLY what he learned from the meritocratic system mate. And learning more while explaining that a worker can't understand how a compagny can work will not make him understand how to run a compagny better, it will just make his interests diverge MORE from the interests of the labor force he is employing.
So you are telling me that instead of thinking about the ACTUAL WORKERS and the possible negatives ramifications that could be created by him firing an employee with kids and - I don't know - maybe equal a so called lack of productivity with his OWN RESSOURCES, the guy choosed the interests of his business and fired the one that had the least chances to find a new job ?
And you are trying to make me swallow that by trying to explain to me that this guy had to make the hardest Sophie's choice with the life of the business in the balance because a guys simply had to leave work a little early because of his kids (while calling this guy a "bad employee") ????
Are you for
F. real ?
You didn't give me example of choices coming from the working class here Einstein. You gave me example of choices made IN COMPLETE ADEQUATION with the interests of the RULING CLASS, meritocracy and capitalism.
The guy you just described could be Elon Musk, there would be absolutely NO DIFFERENCES. They are making the SAME CHOICES.
So.
What I see here in your word is literally class contemp. The simple symptom of meritocracy : the infentilization of the working class.
Its no better than racism or sexism, its the same process : You consider people who have less as less deserving and less encline to do the "wise" choice for the sake of the compagny. In other words, you treat them like SH*T.
You should know that people in the working class actually do know a lot about the way a campgny should run. Why ? Because they F. work in it. What you are talking about are the interest of the compagny, not the interest of the people working in it. And that's why you can't understand why the working class can actually make things work.
And that why you are not the pride of humanity. Imagine for example saying to Luffy that its not his job to take care of his crewmates as a captain.
Indeed #JoinAnUnion
That so kindly put (and kinda inhumain).
"Its not me firing you, its you having the freedom to choose another compagny or profession to work"
But you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if the Labor force was capable of managing their means of production. I asked you:
Is it possible for the labor force/work force TO TAKE OWNERSHIP of a compagny there are working in ?
When they can* (you forgot that part of the sentence)
Are you comparing the labor forces with babies here ?
Can you show me a source of that affirmation ?
Because I found a report saying exactly the opposite :
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/12/14/the-annual-earnings-of-older-workers/
Again, do you have data supporting this claim ?
So you are telling me that - based on his own judgement of what a good employee is or not - his first act as a new owner of the compagny that he bought to help the labor force there was to fire SEVEN members of said labor force ?
And you want me to actually tell you that this guy is a good example to follow because he "learned from his errors" ?
Indeed, usually when you respect the labor forces, you don't fire it based on a whim. Anyone can understand that. This guys does not know what was the best to do because he didn't learn, the guys did that because he followed EXACTLY what he learned from the meritocratic system mate. And learning more while explaining that a worker can't understand how a compagny can work will not make him understand how to run a compagny better, it will just make his interests diverge MORE from the interests of the labor force he is employing.
So you are telling me that instead of thinking about the ACTUAL WORKERS and the possible negatives ramifications that could be created by him firing an employee with kids and - I don't know - maybe equal a so called lack of productivity with his OWN RESSOURCES, the guy choosed the interests of his business and fired the one that had the least chances to find a new job ?
And you are trying to make me swallow that by trying to explain to me that this guy had to make the hardest Sophie's choice with the life of the business in the balance because a guys simply had to leave work a little early because of his kids (while calling this guy a "bad employee") ????
Are you for
F. real ?
You didn't give me example of choices coming from the working class here Einstein. You gave me example of choices made IN COMPLETE ADEQUATION with the interests of the RULING CLASS, meritocracy and capitalism.
The guy you just described could be Elon Musk, there would be absolutely NO DIFFERENCES. They are making the SAME CHOICES.
So.
What I see here in your word is literally class contemp. The simple symptom of meritocracy : the infentilization of the working class.
Its no better than racism or sexism, its the same process : You consider people who have less as less deserving and less encline to do the "wise" choice for the sake of the compagny. In other words, you treat them like SH*T.
You should know that people in the working class actually do know a lot about the way a campgny should run. Why ? Because they F. work in it. What you are talking about are the interest of the compagny, not the interest of the people working in it. And that's why you can't understand why the working class can actually make things work.
And that why you are not the pride of humanity. Imagine for example saying to Luffy that its not his job to take care of his crewmates as a captain.
Indeed #JoinAnUnion
That so kindly put (and kinda inhumain).
"Its not me firing you, its you having the freedom to choose another compagny or profession to work"
But you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if the Labor force was capable of managing their means of production. I asked you:
Is it possible for the labor force/work force TO TAKE OWNERSHIP of a compagny there are working in ?
Very insightful article on how Milei's methods of curving inflation are actually hurting Argentina's economy even further.
https://apnews.com/article/argentina-inflation-milei-single-digits-3cf0adca2cdf911fb04a06c3e9c6880d
https://apnews.com/article/argentina-inflation-milei-single-digits-3cf0adca2cdf911fb04a06c3e9c6880d
Its really funny how the rules based world order only applies to Africa and some other countries, based on the words of "elected leaders".
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-eas...uilt-for-africa-and-thugs-like-putin/3225897#
And this was because the ICC prosecution was impartial in requesting its arrest warrants for both Hamas and Israeli leaders.
This was in response to a question regarding a threat sent to the ICC by republican senators, here is the interview, the question starts at 17:08
Of course threatening to sanction the ICC isn't just a republican thing, Biden's administration and those people are birds of a feather when it comes to this issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...linken-icc-court-prosecutor-warrant-netanyahu
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-eas...uilt-for-africa-and-thugs-like-putin/3225897#
And this was because the ICC prosecution was impartial in requesting its arrest warrants for both Hamas and Israeli leaders.
This was in response to a question regarding a threat sent to the ICC by republican senators, here is the interview, the question starts at 17:08
Of course threatening to sanction the ICC isn't just a republican thing, Biden's administration and those people are birds of a feather when it comes to this issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...linken-icc-court-prosecutor-warrant-netanyahu
H
He was clear about it during his campaign. But things are already starting to improve. Inflation is being controlled. Investments are coming in. International Banks are accepting to borrow money to Argentina again. Investors are buying Argentina public debt titles. Dude is not even 1 year as president yet yall are talking shit about what previous leftist governaments did.
Do you guys have idea that former elected president renounced the position because he had no idea what he was doing and how to fix it?
ain't this the same that Russia is doing in the east Ukraine provinces?
But Russia is the bad guy and the west are the good guys
Holy fuck WHAT
Shit hitting the fan when they start killing presidents
Russia is bad no matter what. Will still see that video to understand what you are talking about but others being bad doesn't make Russia good or even neutral.
No is not the same. Lol. For what I quick searched (wikipedia has enough information) everytime when population is asked either they want to be totally independent or still considered a territory of France (and therefore granted French citizenship) the majority always choses to stay with French. Meanwhile leftist extremists (aka socialists) does heavy anti France propaganda and makes use of force and violence to try to impose their wishes regardless of what population says and desires.
So is just the bad and old left being hypocrite as always.
All those international organizations are jokes and I wonder if they were ever really necessary for anything. Israel has all the rights to defend themselves from constant attacks of terrorists. And then UN comes in and starts to declare Palestine a state under the command of the same terrorist organization that made the genocide massacre of October 7th. While also asking a minute of silence for the dead dictator of Iran while iranians celebrates his death.
And all the people claiming for human rights giving 0 fuck for the hostages made by Hamas.
Yall are the worse tha society has to offer along with those terrorists.
Do you guys have idea that former elected president renounced the position because he had no idea what he was doing and how to fix it?
Post automatically merged:
But Russia is the bad guy and the west are the good guys
Post automatically merged:
Post automatically merged:
Shit hitting the fan when they start killing presidents
No is not the same. Lol. For what I quick searched (wikipedia has enough information) everytime when population is asked either they want to be totally independent or still considered a territory of France (and therefore granted French citizenship) the majority always choses to stay with French. Meanwhile leftist extremists (aka socialists) does heavy anti France propaganda and makes use of force and violence to try to impose their wishes regardless of what population says and desires.
So is just the bad and old left being hypocrite as always.
Post automatically merged:
All those international organizations are jokes and I wonder if they were ever really necessary for anything. Israel has all the rights to defend themselves from constant attacks of terrorists. And then UN comes in and starts to declare Palestine a state under the command of the same terrorist organization that made the genocide massacre of October 7th. While also asking a minute of silence for the dead dictator of Iran while iranians celebrates his death.
And all the people claiming for human rights giving 0 fuck for the hostages made by Hamas.
Yall are the worse tha society has to offer along with those terrorists.
Last edited by a moderator:
ain't this the same that Russia is doing in the east Ukraine provinces?
But Russia is the bad guy and the west are the good guys
But Russia is the bad guy and the west are the good guys
No.
And that's why you should always make more research. The actual natives, the Kanak refused to participate in the last referendum especially because their voice started to be invisibilized by France. Its good to note that the Kanak are the NATIVES of the region and they are now in MINORITY because of the colonization and mostly relegated to as a second class citizen. Which mean that systemic racism there is VERY high.
That's why the Kanak refused the "unfreeze" of the electorate which allowed them to have a semblant of a voice back then and not be invisibilized on their OWN territory. So the youth is very angry and legitimately and you are - once again - a ignorant.
The international rights does not recognize the terrorist status for Hamas. Its a state organization that is acting in armed resistance and that did a war crime. Calling someone "terrorist" would mean that we could not prosecute either people in Israel or Hamas for War crime or crime against humanity you ignorant.
And Israel is a colonial state, which means that they are not defending themself, they are keeping the fire going.
They are responsible of multiple war crimes and multiple act of crime against humanity. Its now time for you to understand just how ignorant you are about the subject.
Last edited: