Assigning malice to those whose opinions I disagree with is my favorite fallacy.
@DesignatedElfWhipper, I would agree. But looking at politics for the past four years has disillusioned me from that ignorance. There are definitely some people that have malice, and others ignorance. I.e. minimum wage advocates. We understand the ramifications 100% of what happens when you increase minimum wage and how much it harms both inner city youth and small business. But people are greedy, and they're never taught basic economics.
@That one lurker, greed. It's really that simple.
@officer fireman, "I'd prefer my neighbor to go hungry so I can get a new iPhone"
@That one lurker, hey! I am curious, what are the issues with minimum wage increase? No offense meant, genuinely curious. I don't know much about the subject. I have heard often companies will increase prices accordingly which makes it hard for some folks but it seems like the problem there is the companies passing their costs to the consumer rather than cutting exec salaries or some such. Thoughts? Sorry everyone else for the politics. Trying to break out of my bubble a bit here
@DesignatedElfWhipper, When a political party is actively seeking your destruction in both systematic AND physical ways; there isn’t a question of malice. It’s just plain hatred and homophobia.
@danciestlobster, it's no problem, you asking the question should be praised.
Where I understand your point, it's a part of a cycle to all ways pose the workers as victims.
To explain this hard decision let's say you have 3 workers doing the same job, they get payed 10$ each. The owner is told to pay his workers 15$ each. The owner has two choices.
Fire one guy to give the 2 remaining workers his half of a salary bringing them to the 15$ min. but leaving the 2 with his share of the work.
Or increase the prices.
Which may happen either way.
An increase in prices means that one guy that got fired eats through his savings quicker, meaning he'll become poor and destitute if you can't find other work...
@danciestlobster, but some works not worth 15$ pre hour. Taking service staff for instance, waiters/bus boys. They don't add much of a service for a restaurant, so they're payed 3$ an hour, but they make that up in tips. Where the better waiters are the more they get per hour, to the point where some gets 17~20$ pre hour through their tips alone.
But in places like Seattle Washington after they implemented a $15 an hour minimum wage waiter jobs dropped off the end of the map because the dinners couldn't handle the overhead of having 5 or so people do "nothing" and rake in that much cash on top of tips.
There are reasons why the people that are backing the $15 an hour lobbyists are Walmart, McDonald's, and Amazon. Because it's the easiest way to remove competition, make it's so unbelievably expensive that your competition can't even start.
If you have any questions, I'd be thrilled answer.
Unless if you have some examples of homophobia being worse then the racist pandering what's happening in politics today.
@That one lurker, that makes sense to me, certainly makes it harder for small businesses to keep up it seems. Of course, for companies like Amazon where fulfillment center workers get for example $10/hour but Bezos is making $100,000,000 an hour, there is a third option for Bezos to make only $1,000 an hour and cover the minimum wage increase for all his employees. Not like that is how it would actually happen, but would be nice. And can certainly see where that isnt an option for a smaller local place where the owner isnt making a ton of money either.
@That one lurker, yeah can you imagine how much it would suck for poor people if we gave more more to *checks notes* poor people? Wouldn’t it be way better for them if they got paid less and more went to their bosses? Because everyone knows basic economics says if you pays someone less money they are richer and happier and no longer in poverty. Smh the meme is about you sir.
@danciestlobster, my main concern and problem with minimum wage is the lobbyists. One place where I agree with progressives on the issue. They lobby the government to force them to increase the wages for their works, instead of just increasing the wages for their workers with out the government compulsion.
And still on top of it the copration will cut jobs in areas after they fund the campaigns that fight for 15.
The Seattle example I gave had McDonald's open up kiosks to take orders because of the price hick they funded.
They paid a politician, so they could fire employees.
My apologies if I'm heated over this, as you can tell from the downvotes this is a sore topic for some. But it feels like describing a sphere to a bunch of 2d people. Or how round the earth is to a collection of flat earthers. You see non of them try to refute me, cause it's all campt in socialism and Keynesian economics. They prey upon the ignorant to get their outcome. Honestly pure evil.
@SteveTheAlpaca, walk up to a man who makes 0$ and say you could give him food, shelter and a bed, but you will pay him $0. Do you think that offer is fair?
@That one lurker, no...? We should pay him a wage where he can buy all those things at his own discretion. A wage he could live happily earning. Call it a living wage
@That one lurker, you’re getting downvoted because you’re argument makes no sense. Why would companies lobby to have to pay their employees more. They could just do it. Also if they are greedy (they are) they would want to NOT pay their employees more. Corporations will not pay you more than they NEED to. If they want to replace you they are going to replace you. Many other countries have a higher minimum wage and are not dying because of it. In fact they flourish. The only person who benefits from a low minimum wage is the person who pays people wages. The rich.
@That one lurker, definitely sounds pretty messed up that big corporations would lobby to be forced to raise their own employee salaries rather than just doing it. Is the reason why just to beat out smaller company competition as you mentioned earlier? Or maybe so they get blamed less when they cut jobs? Trying to understand what's in it for them to behave that way. Appreciate the insight, either way.
@SteveTheAlpaca, this stuff is not supposed to make sense, it's called politics. They pay the people at the top to stop competition. They pay low wages to faster the problem. They pay activist groups like fight for 15, to make a push. All the politician needs to do then is this the day that they will fight for $15 an hour minimum wage. Then boom, the lucrative merger of Corporation and State. Mussolini's definition of fascism.
@danciestlobster, may want to read my latest to @Steve so I don't repost
@SteveTheAlpaca, lowering the bar for requirements to start a business helps poor neighborhoods by employing people.
Entrepreneurship is helped by lowering restrictions and restrictive taxes. I'd off you to watch the Bernie Sanders Town Hall where a woman explains that she has several locations and 49 employees. But if she gets a single more employee she would have to pay for the health care of every other employee. Bernie Sanders said she should go out of business if she cannot handle paying for their health care.
To Bernie Sanders he would have rather "49" people be unemployed then to have a small business owner break the threshold of 50 employees.
Do you believe this artificial barrier is good?
Do you also believe Bernie Sanders is correct, that if you are not rich enough to be an employer, then you shouldn't employ anyone?
And for the other post, do you understand the economic definition of money?
Everyone in both parties are evil.
@ThePandaPool , Politicians are near-unilaterally bad people. In fact those who seek massive amounts of power IN GENERAL are extremely untrustworthy.
@ThePandaPool , yas! Slay queen!
@ThePandaPool , Its big brain time.
@ThePandaPool , only a sith deals in absolutes
@Smurf309fs, are you absolutely sure?
@ThePandaPool , I think he’s absolutely certain.
@ThePandaPool , IDK man… I just know when Republicans aren’t in power, mine and my friends rights to exist, have work, and own places to live aren’t in question 🤷♂️
@Chifilo, of course, because all of the other guys are evil racists. Thanks for proving the whole point of the meme.
@DesignatedElfWhipper, what about supervillains who want everyone to either live peacefully or Return to Monke.
I just read A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. Super enlightening. It's about fundamental differences in "visions" of human nature. A great explanation of why even vastly different topics and issues tend to have the same people opposing each other.
@NotCaveJohnson, he’s a scholar for sure
As soon as you go all in on a single political party, it becomes less of you telling them what YOU think, and more of them telling you what TO think.
@Whole Inn Juan, I don't usually weigh in on politics, but this bugs me. Democracy depends on a healthy opposition to prevent one side from doing to much too fast and I don't think a lot of people get that. It's not like its a constant war to obtain total power. Debating arguments is fundamental to democracy. Even if they don't agree with the side of the argument they're on, they still have to take that side because it's their job to make decent counter points. You think all defense attorneys believe their clients are innocent?
@Whole Inn Juan, it's even worse than that, because we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic, having a republic means we must talk, we must come together, we must debate. Democrats believe this is a democracy, so they will not budge if they believe they have the mob behind them. Republicans for some reason still try to negotiate with them, like they're playing the same game. So everything flows one way. Which is infuriating for me.
@That one lurker, My perspective is based on Canadian politics, I probably should've clarified, but decisions are basically made the same way... If one side wants something done, it's up to them to prove why, and up to the other side to not make it easy for them.
@Whole Inn Juan, I agree with this in a sense. People do seem to start with the answer (i.e. what their party thinks) and then work backwards to come up with the reason instead of coming to a conclusion through critical thinking. BUT, I do think the different political party platforms (not always the politicians) have very different philosophies on the role of governments. Looking at any given issue through that lens will make you come to similar conclusions to other people in your party who share that philosophy.
@Snarfel Burger, For the most part yes, it's the people that will go down with ship no matter what that bug me. There's no realistic way someone should go through their whole life as priorities change and still side absolutely with every argument that party makes. Like the comic says, if thats the case, you're most likely brainwashed.
@Snarfel Burger, The working backwards to justify their "choice" is spot on lol I see that a lot too.
@Whole Inn Juan, the problem with that requires people actually think and most would rather have someone do all that hard thinking for them
It’s almost like we’re all trying to make the country better we just have different approaches and its ok to pick and choose what works from each side
Truth. It’s sociopathic to assume an entire opposing group to you is evil and your a saint.
All I know is when one particular political party is in power; the rights of my friends and myself to simply exist, let alone have work or a place to to live AREN’T CONSTANTLY IN QUESTION.
@Chifilo, I feel the exact same way. #Average dude pride.
@Chifilo, you’re allowing yourself to be lied to and pandered to. My best friend is gay, he introduced me to my wife. He is a Republican because he wants less taxes, and less government authority over his life. No Republican has ever told him anything to think he “shouldn’t exist”.
@big freedom, sorry would you please look up Mike Pence? The ex-second most powerful person in the country. How does one MR. Pence feel about gay people? Your friend being gay is obviously Annecdotal and means nothing for a population of millions of people
@SteveTheAlpaca, Mike Pence never challenged anyone’s “right to exist” and that over dramatic line is getting pretty tired at this point. Someone disagreeing with the way you live your life is not an assault on your existence, this need for unconditional acceptance that is pervading our country is toxic. You’re gay, congratulations. Not everyone is obligated to love and respect you.
@Chifilo, all I know is that when one party is in power, the rights of individuals to have and practice their sincerely held religious beliefs AREN’T CONSTANTLY IN QUESTION.
@SteveTheAlpaca, Mike pence was the VP. He had zero power to influence your life. Stop being a whiny bitch and live for yourself.
@Block1187, yeah never challenged anyone’s right to exist, unless you count his whole advocating conversion therapy to make gay people straight, in which case, yeah, he totally challenged some people’s right to exist. If I disagree with someone for being black that’s racist. Gay people don’t get to pick not being gay if it’s convenient just like black people cant pick to not be black. No one is even saying love gay people. Just maybe don’t advocate for therapy to force them into fitting your constrained and pathetic world view
@SteveTheAlpaca, Mike Pence supported the right of private individuals to make decisions about ineffective methods of therapy. Insomuch that children were forced by their parents to go through it, I think it’s morally wrong, but for anyone else who went through it, it’s a matter of choice. I never said being gay was a choice, and I never defended conversion therapy ether, though I think for consenting adults it’s a matter of choice if they want to waste money and time on useless therapies that have been proven unsuccessful. Back to the main point however, even supporting conversion therapy does not amount to a challenge to some people’s right to exist. You are equating sexual orientation with existence itself, they are not the same. That is a hyper-dramatic exaggeration of the importance of sexual orientation. Even people who were forced to go through conversion therapy did not cease to exist because of it. Even people who for one reason or another have not or feel that they cannot com
@SteveTheAlpaca, e out do not cease to exist. That kind language completely mischaracterizes the reality of it. You can disagree with Mike Pence all you want, but he never challenged anyone’s right to exist, and you have failed to defend your assertion that he did by supporting conversion therapy. Instead of using these tired washed up arguments of self-expression, unconditional acceptance, and existence all being one-in-the-same, why don’t you carefully consider the words you are using to describe the people whose politics you disagree with, lest you come out sounding dumb as all hell.
Is this my old favorite app "PoliticalPics?"
Position A: “We want to destroy you, your country, your culture, your family, and your way of life.”
Position B: “We don’t want that. You’re crazy.”
*Intellectual 1: “Oh, both sides always think the other side is crazy.”
*Intellectual 2: “We have to have both sides for robust debate.”
*Intellectual 3: “Clearly, Position B is brainwashed.”
**Debate** does not require a Party Affiliation.
Fvck the dems. And the pubs. Fvck em all. Cataclysmic world ending asteroid for 2024! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
And this is why the US needs ranked choice voting so we can have more diverse political options
@SteveTheAlpaca, I agree with your statement. I still downvote you for your hyperbole and illogical emotional nonsense above.
@big freedom, “I agree with you but because I’m emotional and reject my side could be at fault I choose to be irrational”
@SteveTheAlpaca, “my side”? libertarians were for gay marriage way before the democrats were. Your emotions trump your ability to use logic. Try again.
I like to turn on Fox and CNN at the same time and watch them battle it out