Corporate cuts should always start with the greatest fat that does the least work - the ones at the top.
Because if the company has found itself in a place where headcount needs to be reduced, these are the people who led it there and deserve all of the blame for hurting the company to that degree. Plus, you should always start cutting where you get the lowest volume of productive work for the greatest money spent, and that is always at the top.
I would consider the latter to be depraved indifference, but the former to be maliciously genocidal.
Of the two, the former is much, much worse than the latter. And with everything being a spectrum of some kind, the former is much further along the path to being evil than the latter.
With that said, there is no single person pushing all the buttons in Israel; as such, I am sure there are people in the Israeli command structure that represent the former much more than the latter, and vice versa.
But if there is one characterization I feel is wholly appropriate: on Oct 6, Israel looked at the evil of Hamas and said, “hold my beer and watch this.” And boy, did they ever deliver.
The Parasite Class. That’s what happened. These are people for whom any amount of wealth will never be enough. So they extract it out of the working class by cramming down wages, making all aspects of life precarious, and raising prices.
We all suffer and the 0.1% accumulare more wealth than they could possibly spend in a thousand lifetimes.
North Korea calls itself socialist
They also call themselves democratic.
Are they? Would you call their system democratic? No?
Why one and not the other?
It’s not laziness.
Most people are too resource poor, too time poor, and too exhausted from being violently forced to be profitable to someone else, to have the headspace to do what you suggest.
You can indeed spend every waking moment optimizing your life, but then you would be just one person among tens of thousands who could be successful doing that. 99.999% of people would utterly burn out trying to achieve the same. They don’t have the underlying intergenerational wealth that would give them the ability to do so, or don’t have the free time to do so, or have too high of a cognitive load just putting one foot in front of the other to do so. Vanishingly few people are “just too lazy” to do so, and of those who are, they are the ones who can monetarily afford to be lazy.
It’s why poverty is fiendishly expensive, and why it is almost impossible to escape poverty
OMG, like North Korea isn’t bad, it’s just the US that “doesn’t like them”.
You’re linking North Korea to the conversation about communism, when that alone is a fatal error: NK is equally as much communistic as they are democratic. As in, not in the least.
There has never been any kind of a long-term (5+ years) communist country on the planet. Prior power structures have always stepped in to decapitate communism in favour of a violently autocratic dictatorship much like a monarchy. What remained of communism was only ever kept as a thin veneer of legitimacy, much like a rotting Edgar suit.
religious beliefs aren’t considered mental illness
You’re right — it’s actually brain damage and cognitive impairment.
In a fair and equitable world, communities like this would not exist, because these people would not have that wealth.
All extreme wealth has been stolen from the working class. That’s the only way it can be obtained.
It’s not just thinking that’s required.
Oh, absolutely. It’s just an exclusive first step that needs addressing before anything else. As such, it becomes an insurmountable barrier for the vast majority of people long before the resource aspect comes into play.
That’s not a world that exists though,
And with how Capitalism is violently coercive (“be profitable to someone else or suffer poverty, destitution, homelessness, and even death”), this also means that it will likely be impossible to achieve until we eradicate greed from our society and make wealth accumulation a mark of deep shame instead of something admirable. Because until that happens, the Parasite Class will continue to find violently coercive ways to maintain and increase that labour-free stream of wealth they have stolen from the working class.
We need government to enforce this.
And until we develop benevolent AGI that have no “skin in the game” (no ways of being coerced and no desire to pick sides) to do the job of administration for us, we will continue to have inadequate governance. Because it isn’t so much that power corrupts, but rather that power attracts the corruptible. Exhibit A: Orange siphilis-dementia’d man with the incoherent talk.
A large majority of that is winning the luck lottery of which family you were born into. Most people who have “trouble staying afloat” are also those who are economically disadvantaged… as in, in the lower-90% of the economic population who are desperately just treading water. Most of the people who “breeze through life” have the intergenerational family wealth that permits this behaviour.
Libertarianism is only viable if you have the ability to effectively evaluate every option you were presented with, so as to maximize your benefit.
Unfortunately, this excludes the lower-90% of the population. Only the top-10% are wealthy enough to afford the mental headspace to do this.
And what does that mean, you fill a document with feminist phrases and ctrl+v over every word ‘woman’ the word ‘man’? That is… wow, that is incredibly academic. I’m actually hit-stunned by how smart that is.
If that’s the best you can come up with, then you are just as bad as Ben Shapiro.
Ben Shapiro is a moron. And so is pretty much anyone who has ever punted the “alpha male” narrative.
What I do, exclusively, is listen to what “feminists” say, and compare it to not only reality, but also how any flip-side examples for men are perceived. From there it is clear that the ideology is one of gender supremacy. There is no other possible interpretation, because there is no equality in their objectives. Any “benefits” that men accrue from feminism are purely by happenstance and lucky accident, but the foundation and exclusive intent of any one incident has always been female-first and almost always to the intentional exclusion of men.
Things along the lines of “women don’t matter” are commonly spoken by feminists
And yet - facts and evidence. In a western society, those are severely lacking from their argument, whereas the flip side is bleeding out everywhere. Hell, a saucy jaunt through any dating service - online or meatworld - is a severe cognitive dissonance to anyone trying to shill the “women don’t matter” bullshit, as beyond the top-2% of men, women have ALL the power in the dating world.
I just thank the fates that I left the dating scene behind me almost three decades ago. From what I can see, things have gotten much, much worse for men since then, and it was already horrid back then.
Then there is the gender sentencing gap in the legal system, which is three times larger than the wealth sentencing gap, and seven times larger than the racial sentencing gap. And no, this is taking into account the exact same crime with the exact same damages.
You teach your boys that their feelings don’t matter and that they’re bad out the gate
Cue mandatory anti-rape training at higher ed, but only for men, ramming home the myth that men are the source of all of society’s ills and the villain in all possible crimes.
So basically, “not all men and not all women” should have been the slogan in the first place.
Yes. That is a very even and equal statement that properly balances the reality of the situation.
But equality was never their goal. That’s why those who have rationally and logically studied the ideology call the practitioners female supremacists, and are likely to call themselves egalitarianists.
“women don’t matter”
I have never heard that, anywhere within the last half a century. A statement like that would be seen as misogyny of the highest order, and would have the speaker publicly crucified on the altar of public opinion.
I mean, sure - it might be uttered in dark, hidden, ChristoFascist corners, but that isn’t spoken anywhere in public like the statement “kill all men” is widely lauded and celebrated by female supremacists.
Traditional expectations hurt everybody, men and women,
Then why have women been allowed to disgorge almost all of theirs, while men are being constantly nailed to the wall for theirs?
Women have been able to nearly completely release the “homemaker” status (yay! - honestly), but a man who wants to be a homemaker will nearly always remain a life-long bachelor. Having a prestigious, well-paying career (or, at least, the potential for one) is nearly always a woman’s first consideration in a man.
If a career-oriented man can (and frequently do) wife up some minimum-wage barista with oodles of student loans, why do career women almost always only look above their current economic level for mates? Because that is a reinforcement of traditional expectations.
Some American jurisdictions can’t even properly report a male victim of rape or sexual assault because their software is hard-coded to assign the victim as female and the perp as male.
Plus, the vast majority of men have been brainwashed into thinking that it is impossible for a woman to rape a man. So many of them don’t even see their rape as a rape, and frequently blame themselves.
And for the cherry on top, male rape victims can and frequently are forced to pay child support to their rapist if a child is conceived, thereby further traumatizing them. This happens even if the male victim was a minor - upon their 18th birthday they are hit with tens of thousands in arrears, and face jail time if they cannot immediately begin paying. Imagine - jailing a rape victim for the product of their rape!!
Think of how this would go down if the genders were swapped, and then ask yourself: why isn’t it going down like that as it currently is?
Because men don’t matter. Because men are trivially disposable. Because if men cannot provide something of value, they are worse than useless: they are a threat to society and need to be violently coerced into being useful. It’s why so many men are saying, “thanks, but no thanks” to the various “traditional” societal expectations of them (career, marriage, and even relationships entirely), and are going their own way. And I don’t blame them one bit.
‘Not all men but always a man’ seems to marginalise victims of female rapists, which do exist.
Oh, it’s much worse than that: the CDC - the largest medical org on the f**king planet - has clearly established that women rape men as frequently as men rape women:
And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).
In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.
50% of all cross-gender rapists are women, and yet almost 100% of all convicted rapists are men.
What an exemplary case of systemic gender bigotry and misandry in society and the legal establishment.
Not really a thing in Canada either. Bought a reasonably midrange ($600k) brand-new apartment back in 2006, it didn’t come with it. Also have never seen it in any other house that I’ve visited, except for the wealthy. And by that, I mean in a house that you would normally pay $4-8 million for. Which is certainly upper middle class where I am, but not overly wealthy.