Topic: There is no place on the Left for white people, straight people or males.
Anonymous A started this discussion 7 years ago #85,683
There is only room for minority groups who wish to have enraged suburban white women peddle them around as their pet victims, as a means to garner power for themselves. Refuse to be a pet victim.
q. joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 21 hours later[^] [v] #981,943
i think its mostly npr that does that, i think theyre desperate to avoid actual economic problems because theyre a bunch of rich cocksuckers who dont want to lose their lucre. thats my theory.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #982,224
where are the enraged suburban white women at ?
beckyderp !TInYDicKMI joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #982,227
i forgot that women are a minority
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #982,229
@previous (beckyderp !TInYDicKMI)
it's like... yeah... yeah picture a pie - now put it in your face you lousy female!!! haha
it's like... yeah... yeah picture a pie - now put it in your face you lousy female!!! haha
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #982,230
@982,227 (beckyderp !TInYDicKMI)
So one might ask why women have not registered to vote and then voted for politicians, to make laws such that the nature of inequality is reversed.
50.8 percent
In 2011, the U.S. population was more than 311 million, with females comprising 50.8 percent of the total population.
In 2011, the U.S. population was more than 311 million, with females comprising 50.8 percent of the total population.
Based on census data, women are, indeed, 50.8% of the U.S. population. While they represent a plurality of Americans, women rank below men in “social power.” Women in business (my usual focus) represent a smaller percentage at each rung of the corporate ladder. Catalyst’s most recent report shows how the numbers drop. In the S&P 500, women are about 44% of total employees, 36% of mid-level managers, 25% of senior level executives, 9.5% of top earners and 5.8% of CEO’s (and just under 20% of corporate board members). Women continue to earn less than men for the same work and overall. Women, particularly single women, are more likely to be poor. According to the National Women’s Law Center, “more than one in eight women and more than one in three single-mother families are poor.”
So one might ask why women have not registered to vote and then voted for politicians, to make laws such that the nature of inequality is reversed.
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #982,241
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,279
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,285
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I think that's probably whats driving the trans thing. If you can't get a woman you can at least be a woman.
I think that's probably whats driving the trans thing. If you can't get a woman you can at least be a woman.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,286
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,288
Chris Irvine joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,289
@982,230 (E)
> Women continue to earn less than men for the same work and overall.
Maybe women should start suing somebody because that's illegal
> Women continue to earn less than men for the same work and overall.
Maybe women should start suing somebody because that's illegal
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,291
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,292
Did you gain this knowledge from being a minority yourself, or from hanging around with a lot of left wing people irl?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,296
@982,230 (E)
If women are willing to work for less, you'd think that more companies would hire and promote them
If women are willing to work for less, you'd think that more companies would hire and promote them
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,304
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Much (but not all) of the wage gap is about having kids and the social inequities in child-raising, not outright "we are paying you less because you are a woman hahahahah.". That being said I never got this "counterargument". If a company would pay a woman less than a man it's totally rational for them to not staff up with exclusively women if they think women do worse work or are less "suitable" for whatever industry they're in and thus warrant the lower pay scale.
As an analogy, people who only graduate high school earn less money than people with college degrees. By the same rationale, it would be totally illogical for companies to hire even one college graduate when there are still high school grads to hire for cheaper. But obviously that's not how the labor market works. Employers value the contributions of college degree earners more and so will pay a premium to get them, even if it means on a basic expenses side of things they are paying more in salary than they technically have to. The same could apply for women who were underpaid and not hired because their male counterparts are viewed as bringing more value at their higher cost than women are. Or the boss is a sexist and will sacrifice theoretical company efficiency in order to achieve some other goal.
Much (but not all) of the wage gap is about having kids and the social inequities in child-raising, not outright "we are paying you less because you are a woman hahahahah.". That being said I never got this "counterargument". If a company would pay a woman less than a man it's totally rational for them to not staff up with exclusively women if they think women do worse work or are less "suitable" for whatever industry they're in and thus warrant the lower pay scale.
As an analogy, people who only graduate high school earn less money than people with college degrees. By the same rationale, it would be totally illogical for companies to hire even one college graduate when there are still high school grads to hire for cheaper. But obviously that's not how the labor market works. Employers value the contributions of college degree earners more and so will pay a premium to get them, even if it means on a basic expenses side of things they are paying more in salary than they technically have to. The same could apply for women who were underpaid and not hired because their male counterparts are viewed as bringing more value at their higher cost than women are. Or the boss is a sexist and will sacrifice theoretical company efficiency in order to achieve some other goal.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,309
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,314
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 31 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,316
@previous (C)
what did it yell
Im studying for a Greek test and i hate thinking about the difference between "what was it yelling" and "what did it yell"
what did it yell
Im studying for a Greek test and i hate thinking about the difference between "what was it yelling" and "what did it yell"
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 26 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,317
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 7 years ago, 32 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,318
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 14 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,320
Anonymous K replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,323
Anonymous K double-posted this 7 years ago, 37 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,324
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 36 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,342
@982,304 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But the high school versus college actually shows that they have less info and training regarding the skill. If both genders with equal training were up for the same job, it makes sense that you would hire the person who expected less money.
And yes I know the thong about children and child raising. Most people ignore that point.
But the high school versus college actually shows that they have less info and training regarding the skill. If both genders with equal training were up for the same job, it makes sense that you would hire the person who expected less money.
And yes I know the thong about children and child raising. Most people ignore that point.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Ghost Anon !!4ieBej4Cq joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,348
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 51 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,349
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,396
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 7 years ago, 16 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,397
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 40 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,401
@982,342 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Yeah there is an actual difference but that doesn't matter. It matters what employers THINK. So if employers for example think that women make good legal secretaries but terrible lawyers, they will value female law graduates lower and pay them less, even if it is irrational and the women are just as capable as the men. Markets are not hyper-rational, they are products of their society because they are ultimately made up of people.
Yeah there is an actual difference but that doesn't matter. It matters what employers THINK. So if employers for example think that women make good legal secretaries but terrible lawyers, they will value female law graduates lower and pay them less, even if it is irrational and the women are just as capable as the men. Markets are not hyper-rational, they are products of their society because they are ultimately made up of people.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,433
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But with all these reports, they also think that women work for less money
But with all these reports, they also think that women work for less money
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,438
@982,348 (Ghost Anon !!4ieBej4Cq)
Of course you are confused about thongs, as you've never touched one and only seen them in pictures.
Of course you are confused about thongs, as you've never touched one and only seen them in pictures.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,443
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,449
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I don't see why in a capitalist society that the lowered pay option wouldn't Trump all
I don't see why in a capitalist society that the lowered pay option wouldn't Trump all
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,451
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Because businesses and business owners aren't perfectly rational and because salaries are only one factor considered when hiring an employee. The same reason why I don't just hire the cheapest lawyer to represent me in court, or the cheapest mechanic to fix my car etc.
Because businesses and business owners aren't perfectly rational and because salaries are only one factor considered when hiring an employee. The same reason why I don't just hire the cheapest lawyer to represent me in court, or the cheapest mechanic to fix my car etc.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,461
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,463
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
All other things being equal, I would hire the cheapest person. Most people would. The point is men and women are not viewed identically and so a cheaper woman employee may be less desirable than a more expensive male one.
All other things being equal, I would hire the cheapest person. Most people would. The point is men and women are not viewed identically and so a cheaper woman employee may be less desirable than a more expensive male one.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,478
@982,289 (Chris Irvine)
The gender pay gap is not the same as unequal pay.
Unequal pay is giving women less than men for the same work. That has been against the law (in the UK) since the Equal Pay Act was introduced in 1970.
A company's gender pay gap can also be caused by other things, for example fewer women in senior or highly-paid roles or more women in part-time jobs.
The gender pay gap is not the same as unequal pay.
Unequal pay is giving women less than men for the same work. That has been against the law (in the UK) since the Equal Pay Act was introduced in 1970.
A company's gender pay gap can also be caused by other things, for example fewer women in senior or highly-paid roles or more women in part-time jobs.
Chris Irvine replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,490
@previous (O)
then why does everybody keep saying that women make less money than men for the same job
then why does everybody keep saying that women make less money than men for the same job
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous N replied with this 7 years ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,610
@982,463 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The point is...you aren't nearly smart enough to handle fries at a moderately busy McDonalds...yet you post paragraph after paragraph of ridiculous blabbering ever day on here..
The point is...you aren't nearly smart enough to handle fries at a moderately busy McDonalds...yet you post paragraph after paragraph of ridiculous blabbering ever day on here..
Anonymous N double-posted this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,611
@982,443 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Like that's some kind of feat that special Olympics runner ups couldn't handle...lol..
Like that's some kind of feat that special Olympics runner ups couldn't handle...lol..
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,615
@982,610 (N)
> The point is...you aren't nearly smart enough to handle fries at a moderately busy McDonalds...yet you post paragraph after paragraph of ridiculous blabbering ever day on here..
you tell 'im boyo
> The point is...you aren't nearly smart enough to handle fries at a moderately busy McDonalds...yet you post paragraph after paragraph of ridiculous blabbering ever day on here..
you tell 'im boyo
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,643
@982,610 (N)
I've worked a couple jobs and every single one of them liked me but I guess I should take your advice and sexually harass women online while drinking away the $200 in savings I've accumulated by age 50.
@982,611 (N)
You would fail to qualify for the special Olympics.
I've worked a couple jobs and every single one of them liked me but I guess I should take your advice and sexually harass women online while drinking away the $200 in savings I've accumulated by age 50.
@982,611 (N)
You would fail to qualify for the special Olympics.
Anonymous N replied with this 7 years ago, 33 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,644
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
So..
A guy that would fail to qualify for the special Olympics would whoop you so bad your momma would recognize you... before I have even had my morning coffee or my first Marlboro red..
Damn...maybe you should start lifting..
So..
A guy that would fail to qualify for the special Olympics would whoop you so bad your momma would recognize you... before I have even had my morning coffee or my first Marlboro red..
Damn...maybe you should start lifting..
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 28 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,650
@previous (N)
So your idea of being in fighting shape is waking up hungover at age 48, smoking a cigarette and drinking a coffee and then trying to beat up someone 20 years younger than you?
You'd tire yourself out after five punches. Not that fighting me would even do anything except get you sent to the hospital or throw in jail. God you're a mess.
So your idea of being in fighting shape is waking up hungover at age 48, smoking a cigarette and drinking a coffee and then trying to beat up someone 20 years younger than you?
You'd tire yourself out after five punches. Not that fighting me would even do anything except get you sent to the hospital or throw in jail. God you're a mess.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Anonymous N replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,652
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
If you can take TWO punches from me without a week in the hospital I will give you 1000 dollars..
If you can take TWO punches from me without a week in the hospital I will give you 1000 dollars..
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,654
@previous (N)
You'd have to quintuple the amount of money you have to offer me $1000. I'm good, thanks.
You'd have to quintuple the amount of money you have to offer me $1000. I'm good, thanks.
Anonymous N replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,655
Actually I was offering to take your 1000 bucks..
You deserve credit for being smart enough to not take the bet I guess..
You deserve credit for being smart enough to not take the bet I guess..
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,695
Count Olaf !vniXELmz6k replied with this 7 years ago, 54 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,696
@982,655 (N)
> Actually I was offering to take your 1000 bucks..
>
> You deserve credit for being smart enough to not take the bet I guess..
wow lol you really got him good
> Actually I was offering to take your 1000 bucks..
>
> You deserve credit for being smart enough to not take the bet I guess..
wow lol you really got him good
Count Olaf !vniXELmz6k double-posted this 7 years ago, 44 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,698
Chris Irvine replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,701
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,709
Chris Irvine replied with this 7 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,714
@previous (A)
no i just was thinking wouldnt the world be a slightly better place if you killed yourself so i decided to tell you to kys. please kys!
no i just was thinking wouldnt the world be a slightly better place if you killed yourself so i decided to tell you to kys. please kys!
Count Olaf !vniXELmz6k replied with this 7 years ago, 37 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,716
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,718
@982,714 (Chris Irvine)
Are you saying that because I'm black? You're a fucking racist piece of shit
Are you saying that because I'm black? You're a fucking racist piece of shit
Chris Irvine replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,719
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,722
@previous (Chris Irvine)
It's because I'm a woman, isn't it? How dare you tell me to kill myself!? I'm literally shaking
It's because I'm a woman, isn't it? How dare you tell me to kill myself!? I'm literally shaking
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,757
Anonymous N replied with this 7 years ago, 4 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,839
Anonymous M replied with this 7 years ago, 50 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,869
Mrs.Kate Gerard replied with this 7 years ago, 45 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,887
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 13 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,890
@previous (Mrs.Kate Gerard)
What give you a white male the right to tell me, a woman of color, to kill myself? You are the epitome of an oppressor and just a shitty human being because you are a white male.
What give you a white male the right to tell me, a woman of color, to kill myself? You are the epitome of an oppressor and just a shitty human being because you are a white male.
Mrs.Kate Gerard replied with this 7 years ago, 4 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,918
Anonymous N replied with this 7 years ago, 5 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,954
Anonymous A is Matt being a bi curious fag...lol..
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 40 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #982,961
I am highly amused that everyone, even Bert, dislikes the FART OP. It seems that as a propagandist, he falls flat!
@OP
I don’t think you have the charisma for this. You should contribute to the cause some other way.
@OP
I don’t think you have the charisma for this. You should contribute to the cause some other way.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 5 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #983,027
@previous (Q)
Whatever. It was a copypasta topic.
@982,954 (N)
You're just upset that a gay black woman is strong and independent and don't need no man.
Whatever. It was a copypasta topic.
@982,954 (N)
You're just upset that a gay black woman is strong and independent and don't need no man.