I can hate both the game for having shitty rules, and for the players that are exploiting the shitty rules when it would be so easy to just play respectfully by acknowledging that the gaps in rules cause problems with the structure of the entire game and I should more equally distribute my resources if I don’t want anyone of the other players to start flipping the board over.
when it would be so easy to just play respectfully by acknowledging that the gaps in rules cause problems with the structure of the entire game and I should more equally distribute my resources if I don’t want anyone of the other players to start flipping the board over.
The unwritten rule of the game is that the guy who plays fair loses to the one who gets away with cheating. An individual has only so much control over their actions.
Exactly! And when the cheaters do everything they can to make even that impossible, it makes sense that one of those players would also break the rules to start burning the cheaters houses down.
Human nature doesn’t allow an idealist fair society without any rule enforcement. We have to collectively make them, and a bunch of arson is not going to accomplish that because we’re always going to want warehouses an we’re always going to want bathroom supplies.
On the assumption that lobbying, bribing, gerrymandering, institutionele capture, legal capture and the general disfunction of first past the post systems don’t get in the way.
The US Civil War was about the Confederate states attempting to leave the union in order to own black people as slaves.
First of all, thats not what fucking progress looks like. Secondly, the outcome was the violence of the southern state failing to have any lastinf effect towards their ideals.
The French Revolution was decades of bloodshed which nearly fell into autocracy again, there are countless violent revolutions which have failed in the same vein.
Lol, you think the French Constitution magically drafted itself? That the guillotine got up and walked over to start writing the new rules like a fucked uo Frosty the snowman?
The French aristocracy had no need for a new constitution until they started getting slaughtered wholesale. Without the guillotine, there was no pressing need for “the new rules”. Quite the contrary, “the new rules” were overtly harmful to their aristocratic lifestyle. They accepted “the new rules” because the alternative was worse.
If you really try to look. I mean really really put all your mental capacity to work, you can see that there was three. Yes. Three other examples in the list.
The most clever people among us also notices how they all were from different sides of the world and from different cultures.
Oh my. Could it be?! Could it be that, you only see what you want to see and compartmentalize any opinion that differ from your view to nice and cozy, easy to digest boxes? Have you ever tought that you might do that on other parts of your life too?
The United Mine Workers of America finally ran out of money, and called off the strike on December 10, 1914. In the end, the strikers’ demands were not met, the union did not obtain recognition, and many striking workers were replaced. 408 strikers were arrested, 332 of whom were indicted for murder.
Labor Reforms came from public pressure and legislative action, not 1,200 coalminers killing 20 people and lighting a coal mine on fire, 500 getting arrested, and dissolving their own organization due to lack of funds. The organization literally didn’t exist when the reforms happened.
Human society doesn’t exist where humans are priced out of society.
When your bathroom supply warehouse refuses to meet the societal needs of the people you hire to run it, your warehouse is a clear and present danger to the very concept of “society”.
Your exploitative warehouse is able to underbid responsible competitors, drive them out of business. To remain in business against you, they also have to adopt exploitative practices, and put pressure on other warehouses to do the same.
The solution to this downward spiral is surprisingly simple: remove your undue influence from the labor market, and circumstances improve for both your responsible competitors and society. Government can do that better, but arson will work in a pinch.
If people are going to resort to illegal methods of effecting needed change, warehouses are among the best targets available. Much lower risk of causing injuries or deaths than commercial or manufacturing sectors. Relatively few workers on site means the economic harm falls predominantly on the targeted owner class, with little spillover on the working class.
My imagination is rather poor; what would you suggest would be a better target?
This might be illegal, but it is NOT a method of effecting needed change. I’m not promoting Arson at all over organizing unions and promoting progressive reform, but if you’re going to burn something down at least target their financials and personal properties.
NO THEY DIDN’T THEY BURNT DOWN A WAREHOUSE FULL OF SUPPLIES WHICH BELONGED TO THE COMPANY. MICHAEL HSU IS GETTING PAID THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT AFTER THIS.
Not the third party staffing agency, not a bank, not his office, not his cars, none of that. A giant pile of diapers that people needed, that’s what.
Kimberly-Clark is a publicly traded company, owned primarily by various billionaires. Economic harm to the company is economic harm to the owners of that company.
This worker did do something to the billionaires. He attacked the source of their wealth.
Those diapers didn’t belong to the people. Those diapers belonged to the billionaires. You’re still not understanding that those were billionaire diapers.
I can hate both the game for having shitty rules, and for the players that are exploiting the shitty rules when it would be so easy to just play respectfully by acknowledging that the gaps in rules cause problems with the structure of the entire game and I should more equally distribute my resources if I don’t want anyone of the other players to start flipping the board over.
The unwritten rule of the game is that the guy who plays fair loses to the one who gets away with cheating. An individual has only so much control over their actions.
Just get a bunch of players together to all agree that cheaters lose their rights to play.
Exactly! And when the cheaters do everything they can to make even that impossible, it makes sense that one of those players would also break the rules to start burning the cheaters houses down.
If this were his house I wouldn’t be berating people for celebrating it, but it’s actually a warehouse full of diapers and toiletries.
Human nature doesn’t allow an idealist fair society without any rule enforcement. We have to collectively make them, and a bunch of arson is not going to accomplish that because we’re always going to want warehouses an we’re always going to want bathroom supplies.
The rich won’t stop killing us if we ask them nicely. All progress has involved threatening the lives or property of the powerful.
No progress has involved that. Ever. All progress has come from legislative reform.
Ah yes, legislative reform that emerges from nothing but the powerful suddenly deciding to be nicer.
In an autocracy like China that would be true, but in the western world they mostly practice Democracy.
On the assumption that lobbying, bribing, gerrymandering, institutionele capture, legal capture and the general disfunction of first past the post systems don’t get in the way.
Lol, you’re one of those screaming “both sides bad” and rejecting any progress has ever been made.
Things demonstrably get better or worse depending on how people vote, better slowly over time, and therefor it is fact that democracy is working.
You forget that people can democratically vote themselves into an autocracy. This was already described in ancient Greece as anacyclosis.
Civil War?
The US Civil War? TF?
The US Civil War was about the Confederate states attempting to leave the union in order to own black people as slaves.
First of all, thats not what fucking progress looks like. Secondly, the outcome was the violence of the southern state failing to have any lastinf effect towards their ideals.
the french revolution was famously not about porcefully taking power from those in power
The French Revolution was decades of bloodshed which nearly fell into autocracy again, there are countless violent revolutions which have failed in the same vein.
More progress came from the blade of a guillotine than has ever come from legislative reform.
Lol, you think the French Constitution magically drafted itself? That the guillotine got up and walked over to start writing the new rules like a fucked uo Frosty the snowman?
The French aristocracy had no need for a new constitution until they started getting slaughtered wholesale. Without the guillotine, there was no pressing need for “the new rules”. Quite the contrary, “the new rules” were overtly harmful to their aristocratic lifestyle. They accepted “the new rules” because the alternative was worse.
This bro literally thinks the French Aristocracy were coerced into writing their constitution…
I have no words.
Hmm.
French revolution started because bread was expensive.
The Arab spring started because people got mad how one market stall keepper got treated.
Russian revolution if 1905 started when one factory was closed.
Boston tea party happened because of taxation.
Legistlations came months or even years after any of these revolutions
It’s really telling that you think the rise of the USSR was a fitting example on your list, you Tankie scum.
Haha you funny angry man.
If you really try to look. I mean really really put all your mental capacity to work, you can see that there was three. Yes. Three other examples in the list.
The most clever people among us also notices how they all were from different sides of the world and from different cultures.
Oh my. Could it be?! Could it be that, you only see what you want to see and compartmentalize any opinion that differ from your view to nice and cozy, easy to digest boxes? Have you ever tought that you might do that on other parts of your life too?
Someone has never heard of the Ludlow Massacre, I see.
Obviously neither have you.
Maybe you should keep reading: https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/ludlow-massacre-spurred-new-deal-labor-reforms/
My whole point that you missed entirely is that legislative reform is often the result of some kind of violence happening.
Labor Reforms came from public pressure and legislative action, not 1,200 coalminers killing 20 people and lighting a coal mine on fire, 500 getting arrested, and dissolving their own organization due to lack of funds. The organization literally didn’t exist when the reforms happened.
Human society doesn’t exist where humans are priced out of society.
When your bathroom supply warehouse refuses to meet the societal needs of the people you hire to run it, your warehouse is a clear and present danger to the very concept of “society”.
Your exploitative warehouse is able to underbid responsible competitors, drive them out of business. To remain in business against you, they also have to adopt exploitative practices, and put pressure on other warehouses to do the same.
The solution to this downward spiral is surprisingly simple: remove your undue influence from the labor market, and circumstances improve for both your responsible competitors and society. Government can do that better, but arson will work in a pinch.
Heres an idea:
Instead of burning necessary supplies,
Find a better fucking target.
It’s like I’m explaining to edgy teens that its better to talk to a girl than slit their wrists because they’re sad she never notices them.
Here an idea:
Instead of throwing tea in the sea,
Find a better fucking target.
If people are going to resort to illegal methods of effecting needed change, warehouses are among the best targets available. Much lower risk of causing injuries or deaths than commercial or manufacturing sectors. Relatively few workers on site means the economic harm falls predominantly on the targeted owner class, with little spillover on the working class.
My imagination is rather poor; what would you suggest would be a better target?
This might be illegal, but it is NOT a method of effecting needed change. I’m not promoting Arson at all over organizing unions and promoting progressive reform, but if you’re going to burn something down at least target their financials and personal properties.
He did target their financials. He targeted the source of their wealth.
NO THEY DIDN’T THEY BURNT DOWN A WAREHOUSE FULL OF SUPPLIES WHICH BELONGED TO THE COMPANY. MICHAEL HSU IS GETTING PAID THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT AFTER THIS.
Not the third party staffing agency, not a bank, not his office, not his cars, none of that. A giant pile of diapers that people needed, that’s what.
Kimberly-Clark is a publicly traded company, owned primarily by various billionaires. Economic harm to the company is economic harm to the owners of that company.
This worker did do something to the billionaires. He attacked the source of their wealth.
Those diapers didn’t belong to the people. Those diapers belonged to the billionaires. You’re still not understanding that those were billionaire diapers.