This word is the issue that is grinding gears and it’s carrying a heavy weight.
What’s your take on handicapped people?
Is someone who has worked 20 years in a factory and got run over by a forklift and lost both legs somehow worth more than someone who was born without legs to begin with?
I believe a society can be measured by how it treats its weakest member.
Or the actual quote:
the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members
None of this prohibits anyone from making more money by working harder than others.
The moment when a society starts arguing over who is more eligible for welfare, that’s when that society moves down to the lowest level that it’s willing to offer.
People with disabilities generally want to and can work, even if some can only do a reduced workweek and possibly need suitable workplaces and jobs (as we all do). Establishing full employment and guarantee of jobs to anyone who can work while accommodating the needs of the people who can’t work to the same degree and providing equally for them, is the goal IMO.
Consider an example of a women, who does not work but raises childern and perform other chores to support her husband.
She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
And I am sure there are many such people who are critical for the function of the society, but do not “make money” (i,e wage labor nor even owning capital for that matter)
This is why, IMO, this distinction of “people who work” is counter productive. Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
I will never understand why this particular error is so common, yet it seems no one ever makes the similar mistake “a men” when referring to a single man.
someone who has given back to society by preforming labor
These are two things that are often lumped together but don’t really have anything to do with one another.
You can be employed and give absolutely nothing back to society (tbh, probably the majority office workers are in that category). You can even be employed and take from society (looking at you, people working in e.g. the tobacco industry).
And you can be unemployed and massively give back to society. Just look at the people who do voluntary work or at the millions of moms and dads who are raising the next generation that will keep society running, all completely without compensation.
I spend all day sitting in front of a PC so that numbers on the screen of some investor go up. That’s not giving back to society.
I think the point is nobody should live in poverty. Fullstop. Addendum to that, workers should be paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work.
But the first sentence is the core of everything.
I think that if you contribute to society you are more worthy of being allowed to live. Live meaning receiving a living wage, not life or death.
“Have a job” is one way to do that and there are many many situations in which it is more difficult for some people to “contribute” than others. But to paint anyone’s political opinion as black and white is a real right wing"ish" style attack.
It sucks, but the libs are the lefts conduit for change. Without them we will be stuck leaning farther and farther right as the right leaners continue to actually work together to take our rights away and we waste our time infighting over stupid shit like this.
It is not that working shouldn’t give anything beyond what you get for not working, but that everyone should have access to money to live for.
I am from Denmark and here you earn a fair living wage for most jobs and you have plenty of opportunity to get a high paying job. But for those who are unable to work or work as much or for some other reason are unemployed, they still get paid a small amount of money that they can live for and still has access to things like free health care and free education.
So if you “sacrifice a substantial part of your life” to make a lot of money, you can do that and earn the luxury you get from that. The system just ensures that everyone gets enough to live for, whether they are working or not.
People are saying “no one should live in poverty,” not “no one should live in poverty, by which we mean no one should make money for their labor.” You’re tilting at windmills.
I think youre tilting at the windmills. To say a liberal doesnt believe every one deserves a basic standard of living just isn’t true and is not what was said in the first statment.
I don’t understand why you’re having such a hard time with what they’re explaining to you. No one is disagreeing that working people are getting shafted.
Yeah it’s pretty stupid to slave away under liberal capitalism and expect anything. We clearly don’t live in a utopia, yet these people act like we do and expect to be rewarded by it.
Once people start living in reality and realising our innate worth is more than a number on a corporate timesheet, maybe we can get somewhere.
We could talk but their isn’t some brain trust that is just waiting to be awaken. There is no grand self actualization. Quit wishing for it. People are dumb, scared, complacent creatures. Quit waiting for them to come together, hold hands, and stop the violence.
We don’t need a brain trust, we need you lot to start using what you already have.
Reality is, as long as people like you argue and fight to defend the harmful status quo, things will only ever get worse. But this attitude is so deeply ingrained into you, that you can’t even see that all humans have the same worth.
It does not apply here to smth that is this fundamental. Living outside of poverty for everyone, is very fundamental and basic, not smth that should ever be compromised upon
At no point in this meme or thread, has the argument ever been ‘We should never go to the 1st step’, it is entirely 'We should aim for the 2nd step, and don’t let the Libs stop you at the 1st.
The only people who reject anything, are the libs who reject the notion that you can work towards the 2nd step.
The only people who reject anything, are the libs who reject the notion that you can work towards the 2nd step.
Do they? In my short lived experience its us leftist that reject just about everything. We don’t engage in elections do we don’t change policy. I can’t even get people around my local DSA to shift toward open source. My pitch there is that we are moving to a parallel economy and independence from capital.
This meme is a microcosm of why we don’t have a real movement. The lib is broadly in agreement and gives us an angle for policy change, but the lefty, and echoed by fellow leftist in the comments, are flipping the table.
This misses the point. The point is no one, especially someone who has given back to society by preforming labor, should be left out in the cold.
Why especially?
Why ‘why especially’?
This word is the issue that is grinding gears and it’s carrying a heavy weight.
What’s your take on handicapped people?
Is someone who has worked 20 years in a factory and got run over by a forklift and lost both legs somehow worth more than someone who was born without legs to begin with?
I believe a society can be measured by how it treats its weakest member. Or the actual quote:
None of this prohibits anyone from making more money by working harder than others.
The moment when a society starts arguing over who is more eligible for welfare, that’s when that society moves down to the lowest level that it’s willing to offer.
People with disabilities generally want to and can work, even if some can only do a reduced workweek and possibly need suitable workplaces and jobs (as we all do). Establishing full employment and guarantee of jobs to anyone who can work while accommodating the needs of the people who can’t work to the same degree and providing equally for them, is the goal IMO.
Youre dismissing the actual need to appeal to an audience. Even those who do not share your particular philosophy.
Its simply an appeal to the capitalist or blue and white collar workers alike.
Some have a living wage. Some take full advantage of the current system and have no qualms.
If your point is that we shouldn’t attempt to appeal to them because its is fruitless that is fine. Just understand, the message was not for you.
Consider an example of a women, who does not work but raises childern and perform other chores to support her husband.
She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
And I am sure there are many such people who are critical for the function of the society, but do not “make money” (i,e wage labor nor even owning capital for that matter)
This is why, IMO, this distinction of “people who work” is counter productive. Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
I will never understand why this particular error is so common, yet it seems no one ever makes the similar mistake “a men” when referring to a single man.
These are two things that are often lumped together but don’t really have anything to do with one another.
You can be employed and give absolutely nothing back to society (tbh, probably the majority office workers are in that category). You can even be employed and take from society (looking at you, people working in e.g. the tobacco industry).
And you can be unemployed and massively give back to society. Just look at the people who do voluntary work or at the millions of moms and dads who are raising the next generation that will keep society running, all completely without compensation.
I spend all day sitting in front of a PC so that numbers on the screen of some investor go up. That’s not giving back to society.
… fun argument. Maybe someone else will want to engage it.
But that would require empathizing with them and just ewe… /s
I think the point is nobody should live in poverty. Fullstop. Addendum to that, workers should be paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. But the first sentence is the core of everything.
They don’t agree with that, they think that if you have a job you are more worthy of being allowed to live.
Ok, I’ll bite.
I think that if you contribute to society you are more worthy of being allowed to live. Live meaning receiving a living wage, not life or death.
“Have a job” is one way to do that and there are many many situations in which it is more difficult for some people to “contribute” than others. But to paint anyone’s political opinion as black and white is a real right wing"ish" style attack.
It sucks, but the libs are the lefts conduit for change. Without them we will be stuck leaning farther and farther right as the right leaners continue to actually work together to take our rights away and we waste our time infighting over stupid shit like this.
What did the words ever do to you, to be abused in such a way?
To live is to live.
To need any “wage” to do that is already permitting the wrong frame to be placed around this piece of reality.
Everyone should live. Full stop.
If you want nice things, gold trim and giant tvs and monster trucks, then by all means, use a wage for it.
Nobody should fear for their life because they do not labor.
Just needed to clarify that. Had I not, I could see my words being misconstrued to meaning I believe people who don’t have a job should be killed.
You missed their point.
No one, not only workers.
Still not getting it. These people have sacrificed a substantial part of their life and have nothing to show for it.
It is not that working shouldn’t give anything beyond what you get for not working, but that everyone should have access to money to live for.
I am from Denmark and here you earn a fair living wage for most jobs and you have plenty of opportunity to get a high paying job. But for those who are unable to work or work as much or for some other reason are unemployed, they still get paid a small amount of money that they can live for and still has access to things like free health care and free education.
So if you “sacrifice a substantial part of your life” to make a lot of money, you can do that and earn the luxury you get from that. The system just ensures that everyone gets enough to live for, whether they are working or not.
People are saying “no one should live in poverty,” not “no one should live in poverty, by which we mean no one should make money for their labor.” You’re tilting at windmills.
I think youre tilting at the windmills. To say a liberal doesnt believe every one deserves a basic standard of living just isn’t true and is not what was said in the first statment.
You don’t get it, you don’t have to sacrifice anything to have value as a human.
Why do Libs always have to dehumanise people?
If you work 100 or 0 hours a week, you have exactly the same right to basic life needs.
You dont get. Beyond your idea utopian society the society these people labor to build has forsaken them.
I don’t understand why you’re having such a hard time with what they’re explaining to you. No one is disagreeing that working people are getting shafted.
Yeah it’s pretty stupid to slave away under liberal capitalism and expect anything. We clearly don’t live in a utopia, yet these people act like we do and expect to be rewarded by it.
Once people start living in reality and realising our innate worth is more than a number on a corporate timesheet, maybe we can get somewhere.
We could talk but their isn’t some brain trust that is just waiting to be awaken. There is no grand self actualization. Quit wishing for it. People are dumb, scared, complacent creatures. Quit waiting for them to come together, hold hands, and stop the violence.
Thats reality.
False. Why do you refuse others their dignity? Is it because you have lost respect for yourself?
Its been a while since I’ve seen a Dwight style objection. I need a second to adjust to this level of scrutiny.
Hmm.
Case and point?
We don’t need a brain trust, we need you lot to start using what you already have.
Reality is, as long as people like you argue and fight to defend the harmful status quo, things will only ever get worse. But this attitude is so deeply ingrained into you, that you can’t even see that all humans have the same worth.
I am definitely not your average person
It is called the Nirvana falacy: rejection of anything that is not an immediate perfect solution.
A road is crossed in many steps, not one giant leap.
It does not apply here to smth that is this fundamental. Living outside of poverty for everyone, is very fundamental and basic, not smth that should ever be compromised upon
Ironic.
At no point in this meme or thread, has the argument ever been ‘We should never go to the 1st step’, it is entirely 'We should aim for the 2nd step, and don’t let the Libs stop you at the 1st.
The only people who reject anything, are the libs who reject the notion that you can work towards the 2nd step.
Do they? In my short lived experience its us leftist that reject just about everything. We don’t engage in elections do we don’t change policy. I can’t even get people around my local DSA to shift toward open source. My pitch there is that we are moving to a parallel economy and independence from capital.
This meme is a microcosm of why we don’t have a real movement. The lib is broadly in agreement and gives us an angle for policy change, but the lefty, and echoed by fellow leftist in the comments, are flipping the table.