Basil

Basil wrote

I guess my biggest critique would be that a lot of what they ask for ($15 minimum wage, more vacation days and free time, etc.) are things that can relatively easily morph into what is in fact less exploiting the 3rd world; If people have the free time and start gardening, that's good! If they have the spare income and can afford to buy local food or whatever now instead of buying it from some huge corporation that has slaves, that's good!

Is a lot of it ultimately futile because of the way products are sourced in this day and age in the US? Yeah, probably, but if you buy into harm reductionism or whatever, it could reduce some harm. Granted, I would agree that many workers would simply use the new benefits to exploit harder (in the case of higher wages at least; more free time doesn't really give people ways to exploit, at least not super directly), but I think that for many people it would enable them to meet the basic needs of life, like financial security and not constantly fearing about bankruptcy and whatnot, not even giving them the opportunity to exploit more because from the beginning their spending with their new income is dictated by existing conditions. the difference between choosing between Rent and medicine or being able to get both, for example. But in general I agree with you.

3

Basil wrote

I don't know who finds this surprising. Nobody drinks because it's healthy, those who say they do are literally just making an excuse to do so. People drink to feel better, temporarily, even knowing the long term consequences are bad, they don't really care.

6

Basil wrote

The more I live, the more I realize that in an ideal world all those people who don't like to talk politics are right, and that that is especially true in an electoral system. Like why talk about something that makes you sad if you aren't going to do literally anything about it. What's the point.

5

Basil wrote

I started working forty hours a week recently. I was opposed to that many hours before, but now, knowing that I have a good job where I get paid lunch and 2 1/2 hours a day to do whatever, and still seeing how bad and tired I feel everyday, I don't understand how this has been the norm for so long, and how before that the standard was even longer. I hope that either the revolution comes soon, or that at least wages get raised and hours lowered.

4

Basil OP wrote (edited )

Yeah that's fair. Nah, she was leading me on. We dated twice, on and off, and even when we were on different continents for Uni she said she wanted to cuddle with me and stuff like that, but then would change her mind two weeks later and say that she didn't really want to talk to me anymore, then want to be friends again after another two weeks. I probably should've realized that it was going nowhere, but oh well. There was definitely a time when I interpreted someone trying to be my friend as leading me on, and I regret that time, but it wasn't with this girl.

6

Basil wrote

Never been there lol, and saying that I have doesn't strengthen your argument or take away from mine. You can try to ignore facts for as long as you like, but I guess if this really is becoming law then we'll see how it turns out in a year or two. For everyone's sake, I hope that you're right and that this is a good thing, but I remain extremely skeptical.

2

Basil wrote

Did you miss the whole part where if six or seven parents choose to take part in this program, it changes class sizes from 25 to 40? While it is welfare, it's taking money away from others who probably need it more, who definitely need it more if you can afford to use $7,000 to send your kid to private school. I wouldn't say this is anti poor people getting welfare, I'd say I'm anti rich people getting welfare, and also anti poor people getting shafted by said rich people. Which is literally what teachers in the article are saying will happen.

2

Basil wrote

Mate this isn't a "people need authority or they'll make bad choices" thing. That's not true. What is happening, that you seem to ignore, is that this results in people not just being given the option of making a bad choice, but being forced into it. So the alternatives are being forced to make a good choice, or forced to make a bad choice. Yes, in an ideal world they wouldn't be forced either way, but this isn't a matter of idealism. It's a matter of practicality, and personally, I prefer forcibly helping people rather than forcibly hurting them.

4

Basil wrote

I mean the whole idea of this program is to make kids even more white nationalist, as well as push non-white kids lower down on the social scale, because only the white families will have enough money to actually give their kid a good education. I agree that school has a lot of problems, but I think this is effectively the complete opposite of a solution

10

Basil wrote

Reply to by !deleted34530

all disputes are to be settled by fistfights, or something similar.

I don't think this would make a good society, but it would be an interesting one

4