SJW – SAFE SPACE

0

I once apologized and the SJWs used it against me sometime down the line. They use anything and everything as a political weapon. It’s like dealing with a borderline woman; she doesn’t care about how the game is played, it’s about wining at all costs. People like that have no honour. They have no respect for anyone, not even themselves.

 ***TRIGGER WARNING*** MY GUNS HAVE TRIGGERS !!!

I am glad that they mentioned how religious movements are a part of why ‘micro aggressions’ came into being. A very interesting part of this whole SJW conversation is that the far right and the far left often agree on the outcomes but use different arguments to get there. Further, ‘moral panic’ is very much a conservative victim mentality – the SJW movement may be an extreme reaction to a conservative position. For example, a religious conservative may say abortion is morally wrong and even making it available is a sin. When that religious conservative starts pushing these beliefs into policy positions, getting politicians to pass anti-abortion laws and remove funding, it is a reasonable reaction that these would be viewed as ‘aggressive assaults’ on pro-choice. What happens is that there really is no middle ground because if you try to have a nuanced view on this subject, as Mr. Haidt says, you are demonized. Very great interview. And, in general, I don’t trust either extremely conservative religious people nor extremely progressive SJWs – both roads lead to totalitarianism and each side is very much aware that to win this war, they need to control the laws, social conditioning, and policies our country adopts. The scary part is that both sides together create the perfect environment for demagoguery & identity politics.


Safe spaces especially where protected groups include ideologies and enforcement of biological gender unspecific pro nouns = bonkers loony lefty thought police just as Orson Wells predicted.


Party is hijacked by Islamist, SJW, PC, “Trigger warning & safe space” whiners, black life matters, TYT etc extreme left.

Good point about educators teaching students to think in precisely the way cognitive therapy teaches people not to think. Postmodernism is the ideology that enables this trend toward self-indulgent, childish thinking. Postmodernism rejects the possibility for truth (though they don’t come out and acknowledge it). A world without truth, facts, and reality, a world in which everything is just what some subjective imagination dreams up or what a group of like-minded subjectivists dream up is a world of mental illness. — Regarding the notion that students can be traumatized by exposure to ideas, it’s not just a result of over-protective upbringing, it’s also a consequence of the catastrophizing mentioned in the cognitive therapy discussion, and the lack of intellectual self-discipline that postmodernism promotes. — There’s a margin of trauma that depends on the attention and validation that the “traumatized” person contributes. Trauma can be both under-validated and over-validated.


  Many of the finer parts of human life require us to take a passive approach to them, not trying to control or exploit them, but allowing ourselves to be affected by them. Love, empathy, appreciation for beauty, respect and reverence where appropriate are examples, but a newer trend tries to scientize art and the humanities, to analyze them to see how they can be controlled and exploited. — Too much reliance on scientism and postmodernism are two branches of the same tree. The roots of postmodernism go back to early modern science and empiricism.
 
Descartes, an early atomic theorist (microcorpuscularianism) and scientist in hydraulics and optics, and the inventor of the means to inter-translate geometry and algebra, also pretty much invented the notion that we call subjectivity. Humean skepticism grows right out of the assumption he shared with Locke that “every thing in nature is an individual,” an assumption implicit in science’s mathematization of physical phenomena. And yet, science works marvelously in rendering the world more easily manipulated for human purposes, and its history raised our expectations regarding the nature of truth to extravagant degrees.
 
Yet we forget that science is a manipulative take on reality, not a neutral description of it. The most neutral take on reality is the most passive one, which doesn’t render reality in forms that enable us to exploit it. But description itself is a manipulative process, and beyond that, the objectification of every thing we perceive, label, or refer to. There is no such thing as a neutral description, but recognizing this might remind us that just by thinking about and understanding the world, we are manipulating it, so we can remind ourselves to take responsibility for that, and try to maintain some intellectual humility.

You don’t create a society by excluding a group of your choosing, nor can you actually have freedom when only “marginalized” groups may dictate things. The problem with this scenario is “marginalized” is very ill-defined. Are Jews part of the seven groups? Not anymore. Not since they became affluent in America. Is it okay to be an antisemite now then?

 
Also, it’s not about white males vs everybody else, that is a complete and utterly false pretention of reality. It’s about a vague notion of “privileged” vs “victimhood.” Your scenario oversimplies reality. What about gay white males? What about poor straight whites males? What about white females who love their husbands? You also drew a false equivalency here when you say they are having as much of a say, no, they are having a LOT more of a say. It’s a trial-by-POLITBURO vs everyone else who isn’t part of that politburo. That’s BAD. I hope you realize that.
 
It’s a Purgatory of Speech. What if I’m a black man who is afraid of radical Islam or an Asian kid who questions affirmative action? I’m not white in either of those scenarios, but I’d be similarly shut down, charged, or completely defamed, or worse, “investigated” by the so-called marginalized groups. LAst but not least, is the deeply troubling implication you make about whites vs the marginalized, and that is the fact that there is an implied WISH for historical VENGEANCE.
 
The notion that your ancestors killed mine, now I’m legally allowed to oppress you and your descendants openly. That somehow, if a group who was on top in the past, there is a NEED for them to be brought low today, and that this somehow equates to justice. Now, I’m NOT saying that’s what you’re trying to say, i’m saying there is an IMPLICATION, and that this kind of rhetoric has been shared overwhelmingly by this current culture, especially in the rhetoric seen in the BLM movement. The point is, this notion is morally, ethically, and humanistically TERRIFYING and the opposite of actual justice. In that world, people aren’t judged individually, they would be judged instead and subjected to all sorts of assaults on their personhood by mere association with a group YOU deem them to be a part of. In such a world, there can be no justice, no moral responsibility. NO ONE should be having any “of that shit.”

You got Sam Harris and somebody named Jonathan Haidt all freaked out about things called “Vindictive Protectiveness” and “Safe Spaces”.


But let’s hear another emotional outburst due to lack of intelligence from your ever thoughtful mind


You have no fucking clue, do you? You tired to make a fatuous point and fell flat on your fugly face. Just like your mother when I bent her over a rail and toe her rotator cunt.


NEVER APOLOGIZE TO AJWs/NEVER BLEED AROUND SHARKS!


He’s knows what he’s dong…does anyone know about his mastery of sophistry? He must, and he also understands how to apply (reserve) his energy, as well as knowing how to apply that energy with regard to what issues (wars) to take on.

Insanity is becoming the norm. Hard to believe but how would the insane know they are insane? What amazes me is that the sane don’t shout them down.

 
Rational thought processes can be tested against reality. Insanity is essentially a thought process that doesn’t match demonstrable reality. This is why people often become violently upset when their delusions are challenged.
 

Pejorative for someone with leprosy?

 
It has nothing to do with what either of us think. Reality is that which doesn’t go away when your little feelings are hurt.
 
You’re really terrible at arguing. The fact you keep repeating that bullshit about “hurt feelings” like I give even a single fuck about what lies-peddling rags and channels publish or broadcast proves that. And no-go zones are not reality, they are absolutely fictitious. You’re free to believe that nonsense and even call it reality but it doesn’t make you right
 
Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks the pieces over, craps on the board and flies away declaring victory……. Yes, I’m “bad” at playing chess with pigeons…..ie…..”arguing” with people like you.
 
Haha the old pigeon chess playing game joke I’ve heard that many times.. Usually used by morons who have nothing original to say so they rely to some pre-conceived exprssions.At no point have you even attempted actually arguing. I don’t think you even know what it means. And you assume I’m liberal while I’m not even political, merely pointing out the lies and manipulations of people like you by unscrupulous media sources.
 

i am black Muslim trans-women in wheelchair. check your privilege !!

 
whites don’t have privilege , blacks don’t have privilege …the RICH have privilege …that’s it…..the rest is smoke and mirrors
 
your too woke ian, go back to sleep now.

The truth as told by pscyhologists is the opposite of what these SJWs say–that being exposed to “microaggressions” or any notion you’re uncomfortable with should give you an opportunity to see you’re actually completely fine and this is one of the ways of coping with PTSD, by gradual exposure to the things that trigger you. That they feel traumatized by such harmless things means something is very wrong or it’s all in their heads/ideology.


Apologizing to an SJW is like paying ransom money to a kidnapper before he hands you the prisioner. You know that you will lose both prisioner and money, and you’ve just given the bastard the power to keep blackmailing you.


This reply slipped under my notice, sorry I didn’t respond earlier. About why I’m not convinced whether imperialism or terroristic anti-imperialism is more dangerous: imperialists appear to be motivated by greed, but in order for greed to be fed, there has to be an Earth and a humanity to take advantage of, a status quo to maintain. Anti-imperialists, on the other hand, often appear to be motivated by vengeance, misguided notions of justice, or eschatology, and these individuals might not care whether or not there’s an Earth to live in after “justice” has been done. (Certainly, most anti-imperialists are motivated by human rights, but that doesn’t prevent the worst of them from achieving their goals.) In other words, while imperialism could easily lead to the total destruction of society—the close calls for nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, for example, or climate change—imperialists are at least incentivized to preserve human civilization. Anti-imperialists may have good reasons to be angry, but that anger makes them more dangerous, less predictable, than the imperialists, once they resort to terrorism.

 
On a more personal level, I don’t believe we can ignore the agency of an individual just because their actions are precipitated by the actions of others. The invasion of Iraq might have created a power vacuum for ISIS to fill. Arms supplied to rebels by the US may have found their way into ISIS hands. And if that’s reality, the US government bears responsibility. But individuals had to choose to form ISIS. Individuals had to choose to pick up those arms and use them to wipe out Yazidis and behead journalists. The responsibility for those actions lies with the ones performing them, not the US. Even if you’re starving, you cannot deny responsibility when you rob another person at knifepoint.
 
This applies to all people, whether powerful or powerless. You say, “we are simply not virtuous enough, on average, to responsibly separate the two ideas [hating Islam and hating Muslims]”. Perhaps we aren’t virtuous enough. But even if we risk not living up to that virtue, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. If your intellect tells you that Islam and the Muslim population are not one in the same, nor intrinsically linked, but you then decide to behave as if they are because you don’t trust yourself be virtuous enough—you’re showing a lack of respect for yourself, a lack of respect for human potential. It’s too cynical, too doublethink. It’s like the person who doesn’t believe in God, but claims they believe in God because they only trust themselves to do the right thing if they believe in God—they’re still atheists, only lying to themselves. Sure, the truth might be that I’m too prejudiced to criticize Judaism without resenting Jews as well.
 
But sometimes we have to put our ideals before truth, like the Hero who fought with Zekrom against his twin and Reshiram. The difference between us is that I’m willing to consider that Harris “could be lying to himself about his lack of prejudice”, without prematurely deciding one way or the other. You have decided that he is “prejudiced, or at least bigoted”, even though you cannot see into Harris’s mind.

People need to read 1984 again (or read it if they haven’t). This IS totalitarianism. We are even working on Newspeak (e.g. the R word).

 

He rejects the interventionism of the right but also rejects the placating self flagellation cuckolding white guilt of the left.

 
These days men generally aren’t willing to defend a system which, instead of AT LEAST  CALLING EVIL WHAT IT IS, make excuses and apologies for that evil and blame themselves in a sick cuckold fantasy of self flagellation, white guilt and liberal mental illness.

Hilary Clinton is a deceitful crook, a seditious-dishonest-politician and how anyone could vote for her is so telling on what now passes for a leader, we have become a nation of degenerates. At least with Trump you know what you get cuase he speaks his mind and he does have our country’s best interest in mind and he’ll have solid people around him to help. Clinton on the other hand won’t have people to help because she’s a sociopath-narcissist who will not listen to anyone. If you’re thinking about voting for Hilary I would ask you too first Read Christopher Hitchens: ‘No One Left to Lie To’ (the values of the worst family).


There is no true conservative. There are only ‘conservatives” in general and in practice. Neo-liberals are not warmongers. It’s a false equivalence. It’s like saying fox news and CNN are equally politically biased. That’s just a reductionism based on a falsehood you need to believe to justify your ideology. Hillary clinton is o warmonger, that’s total bullshit. That’s like calling Bernie sanders a gun freak owned by the NRA. Wow, she voted for the iraq war resolution, after Bush already declared he was invading iraq regardless of the resolution, and 90% of her constituents supported it. to call that warmongering is fatuous. Have you no common sense? Is everything black and white in your world? Bill Clinton never invaded iraq. He didn’t invade anyone like Bush did. Conservatives are owned by the NRA and military industrial complex. This is known by anyone with any knowledge on the subject.


“Sure Hillary is bad on free speech, but Trump is mean” – Haidt


You gotta be the one that locks eyes with them in a philosophy course and say the shit you know will trigger them. Say the words that you know your professor can no longer utter out of fear. Speak of the subjects that makes them stutter, watch them fumbled over words as their arguments fail under scrutiny. These intellectually crippled adult-children can’t handle the debate, but that doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to have it.


What kind of insult is “old ass fuckboy” anyway? Given the option I’d rather have my legal name changed to ‘Mr O. A. Fuckboy’ than ‘Mr C.Flicker’, which you probably chose out of fear for using your real name: Clit Flicker. Which I know because your mom always said she liked the way I flicked her clit and promised to name our least successful child after this act. We’re both dissapointed in you and we love your brothers, Flap Waggler and Pube Peeler, much more than you.


Feminist in the US all talk about rape culture, but it’s always the man who is considered guilty unti proven otherwise by society. Even if a rape accusation is proven to be false, the stigma to that person’s reputation tends to linger. I am familiar with some of the work of Mrs. Summers. Ironically, it’s the feminists who have damaged women’s position in rape cases, due to banking heavily on incidents that backfired. When public awareness was brought to several alleged cases of rape that turned out to be false accusations, it just showed that you can’t give someone the benefit of the doubt based on gender. At the end of the day, zealots are always a bad choice to push for any agenda. They just end up ruining it. Personally, I think that feminism has served its purpose and is tainted beyond redemption. You want equal rights, be an egalitarian.


“Ridicule is the only Weapon against unintelligible propositions” ~ Jefferson


if they back right-wing antisexual antihumane causes and defend islam then they are right wing fundies. If it quacks it’s a duck. That has nothing to do with any “Scotsman”. You see, I’m not claiming that it plays bagpipes and wears a kilt but somehow it’s not a true Scotsman, but that it doesn’t play bagpipes or wear a kilt!!


This is why Nietzche favored religion as a tool for the tribal-minded. Removing it creates a vacuum. Tribal people are crazy whether you give them a god or not.


“we have killed god and now we have no ground to stand upon”. Paraphrased.


So true. Fragile Millenials. All they need are diapers and binkies.


“Anyone who seeks to censor others, is inherently evil . ” Splitting much? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)


No, YOU are trying to put words in my mouth, but you can’t do that because you are not even close to smart enough. First of all, no, there isn’t “systemic racism” just because you say there is. If you would open your fucking eyes, you would see that a large majority of these delusional SJW’s are ABSOLUTELY saying that all whites are racist. Not only that, but many of them are calling for “white genocide” and starting riots all over the country for no good reason. So fuck them for that. Just like you, they don’t understand reality and, despite all the statistics and facts, still think that there is “systemic racism” in America and in “the West” in general. If you “believe” that, then you’re either misinformed, uninformed, in denial, or full of shit. You are clearly unable to understand basic concepts like “Justice” and “Correctness”, but think you have some deep knowledge about words like “SOCIAL Justice” and “Political Correctness”, and despite having access to literally thousands of hours of footage of retarded dickhead SJW’s making a total ass out of themselves on YouTube, you still don’t understand what SJW’s even represent. You are clueless. Possibly hopeless. Second of all, just so we are totally clear…The term “Reverse Racist” is used by RETARDS who don’t know what the fuck they are talking about. The term “Reverse Racist” is used by propagandists mostly who want YOUR DUMB FUCKING ASS to THINK and BELIEVE that only whites can be racist and only whites ARE racist. Why do you think so many DUMB FUCKING SJW’s THINK THAT BLACK PEOPLE CAN’T BE RACIST???? Haven’t you ever heard this “Racism = Privilege+Power+Prejudice” nonsense?????? If not, then you’re not ready to have this discussion. Lastly, I’m not “policing your language” you dolt…I’m explaining basic DEFINITIONS OF WORDS to you, because you are a fucking RETARD who is USING THE WORDS WRONG, YOU IDIOT. I don’t care if you use the word wrong all day long, but I’m not going to. So if you want to TALK TO ME, you either use the words properly, like a person who ISN’T A FUCKING MORON, or I’ll have to take the time to EXPLAIN WHAT THE WORDS ACTUALLY FUCKING MEAN.


No. I’m not looking for a conversation with you. I tried answering your first comment reasonably, then you insisted on calling me “dickweed”. I’m not going to waste my time HUMORING your DUMBASS BULLSHIT when your first response to me contains a direct insult. So no. Go fuck YOURself. By the way, I answered all your sophomoric idiocy with common sense and logic. You’re a fucking idiot. End of conversation.


The purpose of Safe Spaces and Micro Aggression is Censorship, segregation and the control of thought.

I’d say it would be worth determining whether there was a direct cause-effect relationship between being offended and being sick, or if there were other underlying issues associated with that particular correlation. The fact remains that people who complain about being offended are demanding special treatment, while others who may be just as offended have learned to live with the offense without acting out harmfully against the offenders. Jews and Christians and indeed atheists like me have to face lampoons about their beliefs (or lack of belief) sometimes on a daily basis, yet the incidences of their taking violent action against such sources of irritation are rare at best. Further, it is my observation that Muslims in particular are taught to have such reactions by their imams and a holy book that claims to be THE LAST WORD, which is arguable at best and ludicrous at worst. This is not unlike the preferential treatment that many religions have demanded over the years and have lost as people grew up and refused to acquiesce to those beliefs. In short, all the fooforaw is the result of manipulation of some humans by other humans, something that religion has done for millennia, and which I have no interest in tolerating.





Iklan

CHILD LABOR : VOLUNTARY WORK

0

20597522_1932415350364142_6592309651422728970_n.jpg

Hey guy its voluntary, its not real capitalism!

If nobody was forced to do anything then they probably chose to do this because it was better for them than not doing it

That makes it a lesser of two evils choice. Structural coercion.

“It’s a fact that you need resources to survive…”

And since such resources in a capitalist system are enclosed via private property norms, that gives those that “own” such resources a position of hierarchical power over those that do not.

Is child labor denial the cappie version of holocaust denial?

Ancoms, you only have two options here. Either A. defend this, or B. find a way to blame this on capitalism.

“A six year old with a job is making morel money then a six year old without a job. If he goes to school and geta and education what happens the the poor coal baron….. He’d have to pay a grown man twice as much and then he couldn’t afford his new castle… The free market provides!”

Child labor is actually usually a symptom of poverty in which a child HAS to work in order for them/their family to survive. If they go to school rather than work it’s likely they’re family won’t survive well.

You retards want to know about child labor? Go read Farmer Boy by Laura Ingalls Wilder. That will give you a good look into the life of a 9 year old round about 1880. Just a warning, you will find out that you are a pussy assed little bitch. Especially you Chuck Kandler.

Don’t have to do either actually. Child labor used to be a necessary evil of sorts, as it is the result of abject poverty, which is the default position of humanity and so would have been present at the start of any economic system. Capitalism created an abundance of wealth, and reduced the cost of living to well below the value of our children’s time and health. We no longer need to make such sacrifice

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaker_boy

 

WE SHOULD NOT WORK JUST TO SURVIVE : INEQUALITY

0

Hello. I remember, when I was three years old, back in my nursery class, we were singing this song, or at least, trying to sing a song. Some of you might have heard of it actually.

It’s about a wise man who builds his house upon the rock, and a foolish man who builds his house upon the sand. When the rains came down, and the floods came up, it was the house on the rock that stood firm. Looking back now,

I see there’s a clear message to this song. And that is that the best way to allow all of us to flourish as much as possible is to provide us with firm foundations from which to build our lives. In the song, these foundations were a physical rock from which the wise man built his house. Now I see these foundations as financial.

That is, enough money to cover our basic necessities; a roof over our head, food on our table, heat and light for our home, before we earn extra money through paid employment. That’s the idea I want to share with you today: that we shouldn’t have to work just to survive. I know what you’re thinking. It was emphatically articulated by a so-called “social media troll” last time we did this, back in November, and that is, “Why should I listen to some posh bloke, with a ridiculous double-barreled name, and a center parting in his hair, tell me about why we shouldn’t have to work to survive?” Well, they were right. That haircut? Absolutely terrible. (Laughter)

But for those of you who are skeptical about this idea, I invite you to consider this with me. Because if work is just about survival, just about putting food on our table, just about getting a roof over our head, or even just about struggling to make it to the end of the month, week, or even day then it’s very difficult for any of us to look beyond that. For it is only when we can look past the question of, “What do I need to do today to survive?” that we can ask ourselves, “What do I want to do to live?” This isn’t my idea. It’s not something I’ve read in a book, or a theory, or anything like that. The benefits of it can be seen all around us. Take this university, right here. Hundreds of thousands of students, many of you will be sitting in this room today, a part of a vibrant community of student-led organizations; societies, social enterprises, start-ups, voluntary organizations, all kinds of things. TEDx University of Edinburgh being one example.

Another example, as Alistair said earlier, is The Buchanan Institute, Edinburgh’s first student-led think-tank, which I, and a few others, helped to set up back in January. None of us do these things because we have to, but because we love doing them. And for many of us, they almost become like full-time jobs. People ask us, “Do you get paid to do it?”

We don’t, for the most part. And I speak for myself, but I also did it because I could. You see, I was lucky. I had enough money through a combination of student loans and allowances to cover my basic necessities so that I didn’t need to work. I stress this because in reality, if I was having to work 30 hours, 20 hours, even 15 hours a week, on top of my studies to cover my basic necessities of being here, then there’s no way I would have had the time and energy necessary to set up The Buchanan Institute.

Many people will say, “That’s all well and good these voluntary student organizations, they’re very nice, but where’s the money going to come from? Who’s going to make the money so that we can pay for this situation where nobody needs to work to survive?” Well, the most entrepreneurial and innovative people in our society also benefited from a situation where they didn’t need to work just to survive.

Take for example, Steve Jobs. Back in 1976, he co-founded Apple whilst working with his friend Steve Wozniak in his parents’ garage. Job’s wasn’t rich. But he had a roof over his head, he had food on his table, he had all the appliances and tools he needed so that he could focus his time and energy on creating the first Apple prototype in 1976. You see, if Steve Jobs had to work in a minimum wage job, 50 hours, 40 hours a week, just to pay for his basic necessities, then he wouldn’t have been the founder of Apple. We may never have heard of iPhones or iPods.

But let me take you to the Namibian village of Otjivero, Omitara. For it is here where an organization called, “The Basic Income Earth Network” conducted a simple yet groundbreaking experiment.

They provided every single Namibian villager in this village with a basic income, enough to cover their basic subsistence. The skeptical among us – and I was talking to a few today – would say, “These Namibians! if they’re given enough to survive on, then they’re going to be lazy. They’re not going to work. They’ll sit on their asses all day.”

Well actually, the opposite happened. The percentage of those involved in income generating activities rose in that year from 44% to 55%. This is what happened: freed from reliance on low-paid labor, just to cover their survival, the villagers could choose what they did with their lives and decide how they earned extra money for themselves and their families. For many, this was starting up their own small businesses.

Becoming dressmakers, brick makers, or bread bakers. People have said, “That’s all well and good, but that’s Namibia. That’s a developing country. The west is different; it won’t work.” Well for them we can say, “Canada”. In 1976, the Canadian government conducted a similar experiment in the town of Dauphin, Manitoba.

Every single person who lived in that town no longer had to work just to survive. It was called, “The town without poverty”. Once again, people didn’t stop working. The only groups of people who worked slightly less in that year were mothers, and some fathers, with newborn babies. And some teenagers who relieved from the pressures of earning money for their families, could now go back to school. But something else happened. Relieved from the daily mental and physical stresses of having to work to survive, the ‘town without poverty’ became a healthier one. They actually, in that year, saved 13% on their overall healthcare costs. Something in the UK, with strains on NHS budgets, we could perhaps think about. So what about the UK? Could we try something similar here?

Well actually, yes! An organization called “The Citizen’s Income Trust” have shown that by simply reorganizing our existing tax and benefits system, we could provide every single UK adult with nearly 3,700 pounds a year. This is without hardly spending an extra penny. How? Well first of all, this basic income would replace means-tested benefits that we would no longer need, whilst ensuring that no-one was worse off. But also it would replace the personal tax allowance that we get to a certain level of our income.

So rather than paying tax and then getting money back in a personal tax allowance from the government, you would have this tax-free cash lump sum called, “a basic income” in it’s place. Then what if people say, “Well what if the rich get it? The rich don’t need it. It wouldn’t work.” Then we can say, “In this country we have something called ‘the basic state pension’ for all pensioners. “The basic state income” is the same thing, but for all adults. And the Swiss? Well, they could go further. Much further. In 2016, they will hold a popular referendum to decide whether to introduce a basic annual income to every Swiss citizen of nearly 21,000 pounds a year. Fully-funded, fully-costed.

Sounds good. So, I want to ask you. Let’s imagine that you woke up in Switzerland the morning after that referendum passed and you found yourself with a guarantee of 21,000 pounds a year. Put your hands up, how many of you, would stop working completely? There’s actually nobody. Not one person. It’s not actually surprising. Some of you might work a bit less. Spend more time with the family, spend more time doing leisure. Some of you might realise that you hate your job, and you’re going to use that basic income as a platform to go and do something that you really want to do. It isn’t surprising because as many of us know, work doesn’t have to be just about surviving. It can be about following our passions, fulfilling out dreams, or, as I have been so lucky to do during this whole TEDx process, meet, and work with, and build lifelong friendships.

About six months ago, I was at the hospital, just after my sister had given birth to her son and my nephew called Raffi. I remember, standing there, holding this little thing in my arms and thinking, “Don’t drop him.”

(Laughter) Then I thought, these questions about the future, and how to be OK in the future, and what kind of society we can live in in the future, aren’t just for our generation sitting here. They’re for the ones behind us. The ones being born or yet to be born. And when he grows up and if he ever gets around to and wants to ask his uncle for advice about work and life, – which is wishful thinking- I’d like to tell him, and be that uncle that tells him something similar to what you might tell your kids and probably do. “Raffi, don’t just work because you need to.

Do it so that every day, you wake up doing something you are really passionate about, with the people that you love.” My nephew will probably have the opportunity to do this. He may never have to work just to survive. And people have said to me, “So Johnny, in that case, why do you care? Why do you care whether or not people should have to work to survive? Because it’s not enough. It’s not enough that my nephew has this opportunity. It’s not enough that I had this opportunity. It’s not enough that many people I know, and many of us in this room, probably had this opportunity. In fact, it’s not enough until every single person, every single one of us in this room, in this country, or even in this world, can at least wake up every single morning and genuinely ask themselves, not “What do I need to do today just to survive?”, but “What do I want to do to live?” Thank you very much. Have a great day and enjoy the rest of the talks. (Applause)


You are simply wrong. How can you say he wants handouts when he is arguing for giving out handouts?

He is doing this because he is the one with the opportunity to do so. And he is doing so to help those without the opportunities he has and has had. You did not invent the computer or internet, you are using someone else’s hard work, every technology you use is likely not anything you had any hand in creating. You are arguing that no one should share their hard work so the person who invented the computer should have simply kept it to himself correct?

We should all just be left to fend for ourselves is what you are arguing for but by that logic you would not have a computer unless you could build one yourself and without any starting materials as no one is going to share a single thing with you, material or knowledge, by your logic no one should give up anything they worked to create. Oh but you say it is different because you paid for your computer right? Paid for how? With money you earned working a job? In other words money you earned via the mere fact you had the opportunity to be born in a place with access to a paying job and without any disabilities to performing that job.

Lucky you. Not everyone has those opportunities thus not everyone can afford not just a computer but even the basic things necessary for survival like food and shelter. He is arguing that everyone should have the opportunity to do what they want not just what they need to do to survive.

Example, if you are living on the street it is very hard to take the time to find a job when all your time is spent finding food for the day or a place to sleep for the night and how do you even get to a job interview with no transportation? Again you can’t just hop on the bus because you need to find something to eat first you haven’t eaten in 24 hours and the last thing you ate was scraps from the garbage, you need to find more not sit around on a bus and in a job interview and besides you were digging in the trash who is going to hire you when you smell and look like garbage? You would need to clean up first but then you don’t have any time for that cause oh you found some food but you still need to find a place to sleep for the night.

Maybe you’ll sit on the corner and ask for handouts so you can afford something other than garbage to eat, cause you know there is some food in that trashcan nearby if you don’t get enough money for some food, but you cant hop on the bus to your job interview and come back to find the trash empty or eaten by some other homeless person and not have gotten the job and now its too late to sit out asking for hand outs its cold outside and you don’t have much to keep warm so you need to go inside with no food for the day and you didn’t get the job cause your clothes are dirty and you smell like garbage and why would you even bother attempting to get a job in that situation?

They just don’t have the opportunities as someone in a stable household. It has nothing to do with laziness or even drugs or alcohol because addiction is the same problem, an addicts life revolves around their addiction the same way a homeless persons life revolves around daily survival, there is just no time for any improvements to be made on themselves.

WORK IN MAIN FRAME LEFT

0

“Dont like it find a new job or leave” – ancaps


Do you mean, “find a new slavemaster that will be exploiting you less”?


THE KEY TO HAPPINESS IS BEING BORN RICH


Typically, people are rich because of hard work. I don’t know any rich people who were born rich. They all went to school and started a business that is vital to the community, or they work for people who have vital businesses.


Typically, people are rich because of hard work. I don’t know any rich people who were born rich. They all went to school and started a business that is vital to the community, or they work for people who have vital businesses.


No, in AnCap you do what is profitable, which means serving the interests of people who have money. We don’t do anything for profit. We do things that are helpful to the largest number of people in the group.


If you weren’t a beta piece of shit you would love your job, contributing to society, being productive and providing.


So many communists are so entitled to laziness, and you somehow think that you’re laziness will subside when all personal incentive is removed from labor? The irony is palpable.


In the late 1970s and ‘80s, the sociologist H. Roy Kaplan performed now-classic research on what became of lottery winners. His most famous study asked lottery winners how happy they had been before and after their big checks arrived. That 1978 study, which had a very small sample size, famously found that lottery winners were not that much happier than the control group—a bunch of people who didn’t win the lottery—after their win.

There are a lot of other aspects at work that play a big role besides the extrinsic reward of money: relationships, achievement needs that people have, status needs outside of money,” says Scott Highhouse, psychology professor at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio, and lead author of a 2010 study on workers and the lottery. When Americans are asked if they’d keep working after winning the lottery, two-thirds consistently say they would, his study shows. Of course, that’s a pretty theoretical response. Studies of actual lottery winners tend to suggest that most winners do keep working.

“It is clear that winning the lottery does not automatically result in individuals’ stopping work,” concluded a 2004 study of Iowa and Ohio lottery winners. Of the 185 winners’ surveys examined in the study, 85 percent continued working in some capacity.

Economist Olivier Schneller states that, “Over the last 30 years there has been no improvement in job satisfaction. On the contrary, a steady decrease in job satisfaction has occurred at a time where economic capacities have doubled. So, in summary, through hard work we’ve achieved a state in which as a society we have freed ourselves from [almost all] material needs. The problem now is we are so used to hard work being responsible in the past for improving our well-being, that we don’t question today how changing work itself could be beneficial to us. The developed economy of today doesn’t have to rely on the assumption anymore that we have to be forced to work, because we WANT to work.”

“The most common objection I hear is, ‘But then no one would work anymore!’ Honestly, I’m shocked at how our system manages to maintain such a negative view of us humans. The way I see it, money is by far not the only reliable motivator to work. We are motivated by our interests, by social recognition, social integration, finding self-fulfillment, or just simply by having fun at what we do.

Let us assume that you believe me: that most of us would work even if they didn’t have to; but there are a few lazy ones who wouldn’t work anymore. In such a case, does it make sense to hold on to a system that focuses on the few lazy ones by trying to make them work, instead of moving to another system that focuses on the majority that want to work by giving them the freedom to be productive?”

Schneller goes on to say that, “A lot has been discussed on how to improve the working environment by removing extrinsic motivators. This ongoing discussion is very important, but what bothers me is so far it has only focused on the organizational level; it has only focused on what managers can do to remove extrinsic motivators within the organizations. It has completely ignored the system that surrounds these organizations. It has ignored the fact that our concept of work established throughout our economic system relies on one big, fat, extrinsic motivator. We are forced to work because we have to earn money to secure a living. In other words, the current concept of work is currently set up to kill the intrinsic motivation of the workforce. By being forced to work we are led to believe that work is a burden, we forget that we actually want to work, and as a result, our engagement level is limited. So how imortant is this negative effect on worker motivation?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPHOvuZmCG4


Most taxation doesn’t go to people who wont work, you get that right? It’s actually mostly corporate benefits and war.. This is what gets me about anCaps.. You call everything Government does “communism” even if it’s really about the profit of the elite. Venezuela is to Communism what the US is to Capitalism.. You can’t have your cake and eat it too


That’s real solid grounds for a debate.. Anyway, within capitalism the bottom line is profit… Companies will do whatever to get profit whether those actions are moral, amoral, or, immoral. They already do today, and nothing will stop them. anCaps are still unable to prove “conscious consumerism” has the capability to take down Mega Corporations, so it’s all conjecture.



No one’s “running away” my time is limited. I have to work most of my life away to survive, I’m not going to waste my precious time playing a board game with a child who will ultimately throw the board and stomp around as if he won..


This man is genius. Being forced to work is the cause of drug addiction, domestic violence, unhappiness, unnecessary stress= health issues, and many other negative things. We need a universal basic income now.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-engaged-work.aspx?fref=gc

Hi, everyone. This is a picture of me with my little daughter. Cute, right? Becoming a father is not only a very heartwarming experience; becoming a father, in Germany, also offers the great fringe benefit of taking a paid sabbatical leave, thanks to the concept called ‘parents time’.

And that’s exactly what I’m currently doing, enjoying a one-year parental leave from work. A few weeks ago, my wife came to me and said to me, “Olivier, it’s strange. You’re on a sabbatical. You don’t have to work, but in the last six months, you have worked more than before.”

And she’s probably right. I have worked more than before. This, in my opinion, raises a very interesting question. What if, instead of having to work, we were free to work? What if work was not our only income channel, so that it was a free choice to work? I believe that the obligation to work because we have to earn money to secure a living, is one of the biggest misconceptions of our time.

I’m convinced that if we were free to work, this would unlock a huge, hidden potential in our society.

To explain to you why I have this strong belief, I want to present three arguments.

First, as a society we have achieved an economic state that allows us to rethink work. This shows the development of real GDP per capita over the last decades in Germany. Over the last 40 years, we have doubled GDP per capita when adjusted for inflation.

We have doubled the economic output per person. That’s a huge achievement. But how were we able to transfer this huge achievement into a better well-being of our society? Has our well-being also doubled in the same time period?

Obviously, a better economic situation has allowed us more financial freedom, and more consumption over time. This means that we work more and more to satisfy our luxury needs. The paradox, however, is that we are completely ignoring our luxury needs in the one area of life we spend the most time at, and that’s work itself. It seems as if our well-being at work was not as important, even though we spend most of our lifetime working. Let me illustrate this with a few examples. We work nearly as much today as we did 40 years ago. The number of burnouts caused by high levels of stress at work has risen dramatically. Or let’s have a look at some data on job satisfaction in Germany. It suggests that over the last 30 years, there has been no improvement. You could even talk about a slight decrease in job satisfaction, in a time when our economic capacities have doubled. So, in summary: through our hard work, we have achieved a state in which as a society we have freed ourselves from material needs. And the problem now is that we are so used that hard work was responsible, in the past to improve our well-being, that we don’t question today how changing work itself could be beneficial to us.


My second argument. The developed economy of today doesn’t have to rely on the assumption anymore that we have to be forced to work, because we want to work. When I tell people about my idea of being free to work, the most common objection I hear is, “But then no one would work anymore.”

Honestly, I’m shocked at how our system manages to maintain such a negative view of us humans. The way I see it, money is by far not the only reliable motivator to work. We are driven by our interests, by social recognition, social integration, finding self-fulfillment, or just simply by having fun at what we do. Take me as an example. There is no need for me to do any work this year, but still I feel the urge to enjoy my freedom by being active, participating in interesting projects, and realizing all my ideas for which I never had time. You might think that I’m rather the exception [to] the rule, and that I’m an idealist to believe that these soft factors are strong enough to motivate us to work.

I surely am an idealist, but the nice thing is, many observations in real life support my idealistic view. Take, for instance, all the unpaid work we can observe in our society.

As an example, 30% of the workers in Germany are doing voluntary work next to their work. Thirty percent of the people that work most of their lifetime decide to do unpaid work in their free time.

They must be crazy. But believe me, it’s getting crazier than this. ‘Descape’ is a startup based here in Berlin that offers time outs from your day job with short trips in other work areas. The crazy part? These people pay for these trips.

They pay to do another person’s job! And we shouldn’t forget the craziest ones, and at the same time, the luckiest ones: the lottery winners. A study conducted in the USA surveyed 117 lottery winners, with an average winning of 3.6 million dollars. The study found that 85% of these lottery winners continued to work after winning the lottery. Let me conclude these observations with an open question.

Let us assume that you believe me, that most of us would work, even if they didn’t have to, but there are other few lazy ones who wouldn’t work anymore. In such a case, does it make sense to hold on to a system that focuses on the few lazy ones by trying to make them work, instead of moving to another system that focuses on the majority that wants to work by giving them the freedom to be productive?

My third and final argument, for why I am convinced about the idea of being free to work, is the most important one. Forcing us to work kills our motivation. It kills our motivation to excel at work.

In 1971, Edward Deci conducted an experiment to understand how human motivation works. The participants were divided in two groups, and asked to solve puzzles. One group was paid money if they solved the puzzles, the other group was not.

The experiment included a break between the puzzle-solving sessions.

Guess what happened during those break times? The group that didn’t receive any money spent significantly more time playing with the puzzles during break time than the group that received money.

The experiment showed that extrinsic motivators like monetary reward, the fear of punishment, or the obligation to do something reduced intrinsic motivation, a person’s internal drive to do something because of the interest, and the enjoyment of the activity itself. I think all of us can relate to this result. When my wife tells me to take care of my little daughter, it feels like an annoying duty, even though I love spending time with her.

The groundbreaking experiment of Deci has been followed by plenty of research on human motivation. A very important result this research has shown is that intrinsically motivated people – people who feel related to what they do – are more creative, more innovative, and better at problem solving.

And as these are exactly the skills needed to be productive in our knowledge economy of today, a lot has been discussed on how to improve the working environment by removing extrinsic motivators.

This ongoing discussion is very important. But what bothers me is that so far, it has only focused on the organizational level. It’s only focused on what managers can do to remove extrinsic motivators within the organizations. It has completely ignored the system that surrounds these organizations. It has ignored the fact that our concept of work, established in our economic system, relies on one big, fat, extrinsic motivator.

We are forced to work, because we have to earn money to secure our living. In other words, the current concept of work is perfectly set up to kill the intrinsic motivation of the workforce.

By being forced to work, we are led to believe that work is a burden.

We forget that we actually want to work, and as a result, our engagement level is limited. How important is this negative effect on work and motivation? According to the Gallup Engagement Index – that’s a large, worldwide survey on work engagement – only 15% of the workers in Germany are engaged. Only 15% are passionate, and committed to their work. The other 85% are either not engaged, meaning that they only put as much effort in to work as necessary, or that they’re actively disengaged, meaning that in their minds they’ve already quit their job.

These numbers are alarming from an economic viewpoint, as 85% of the workers are not as productive, and not as committed to drive things forward as they could be. That’s a huge, hidden potential for innovation, for entrepreneurship, and for productivity in our economy.

But these numbers are also heartbreaking from a social perspective, as 85% of the workers spend most of their lifetime with something they don’t really enjoy. Let me summarize.


First, through our hard work in the past, our economy has grown to a level that allows us to rethink work.


Second, forcing us to work is not necessary, as we want to work. And third, forcing us to work kills our intrinsic motivation to excel at work. These three arguments led me to believe that being free to work would have a fundamental, positive impact on our society by allowing us to live richer lives. But now, where does that leave us here, living in this reality, where we are forced to work? In particular, where does that leave you, all the students here in this room, soon entering the job market?

Well, there is this growing movement, calling for the introduction of an unconditional basic income. That’s a sum of money that everyone receives to cover her or his basic needs. This is probably the perfect economic instrument to realize my idea. We could just wait until this movement is large enough to succeed. But the good news is, you don’t necessarily have to wait.

All it requires is that you rethink your own, personal reality of work. Free yourself from the common conception that the main purpose of work is to finance your living, that work is a burden, and that you have to be forced to work, because you want to work. Think of it as something that you choose to do, and this every day. And with this new reality in mind, don’t ask yourself the old questions. Don’t ask yourself what you want to do to earn money in life.

Ask yourself the questions that aim at your intrinsic motivation. What would you do if you didn’t have to earn any money, and you were free to follow your passion? Thank you. (Applause)

BOTTOM TOP OR TOP BOTTOM : COM – CAP

0

Design_Centric_Leadership_Map_v1-768x473.png

http://organizationalphysics.com/2016/10/13/top-down-vs-bottom-up-hierarchy-or-how-to-build-a-self-managed-organization/

Bottom-up heirachies work great for organizations that are capable of managing themselves, such as skilled labor and engineering. However, this has nothing directly to do with Anarchy or capitalism. You’re conflating heirarchical topologies with a social construct that simply doesn’t apply. It’s like measuring the performance of a motor by how many flip-flops you own.


“SuperCooperators
Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed
By Martin Nowak and Roger Highfield
“Exactly the message we need to counter the mythology of the ‘rugged individual’” (Bill Moyers, Progressive Reader).

Martin Nowak, one of the world’s experts on evolution and game theory, working here with bestselling science writer Roger Highfield, turns an important aspect of evolutionary theory on its head to explain why cooperation, not competition, has always been the key to the evolution of complexity. In his first book written for a wide audience, this hugely influential scientist explains his cutting-edge research into the mysteries of cooperation, from the rise of multicellular life to Good Samaritans, and from cancer treatment to the success of large companies. With wit and clarity, and an eye to its huge implications, Nowak and Highfield make the case that cooperation, not competition, is the defining human trait. SuperCooperators will expand our understanding of evolution and provoke debate for years to come.”:


Also, in terms of etymology, anything with the root ‘arch’ denotes a vertical support structure. The root ‘archy’ which is derived from that, signifies vertically structured authority, which can mean any sort of master.

Autarchy means self-hierarchy

Autocracy means self-state

Polyarchy means many hierarchies

Polycracy means many states

Acracy means without state


ya gw ngerti bahwa ini akibat budaya patriarkis yang udah mengakar sejak jaman cro magnon, tapi pengaruh budaya patriarkis yang paling jelas tuh bukan di diskriminasi end result-nya, tapi justru di supply dari resourcenya

jangankan soal pelamar, coba cek di kampus2 teknik, emang mahasiswanya 50:50?

dengan input yang gak 50:50 tapi expect outputnya 50:50, yang ada justru terjadi diskriminasi karena ada pria qualified yang gak bisa masuk semata2 karena dia pria

dunia ini gak sepenuhnya fair? ya emang. tapi ngedumel dan maksain hasil akhirnya terlihat fair yang ada ngecurangin proses seleksi yang terjadi

itu pun belom memperhitungkan bahwa secara biologis dan psikologis, wiring otak antar gender tuh secara umum emang gak sama2 banget

tapi something yang harus disadari adalah dunia industri dan juga nilai2 sosial secara perlahan bergerak ke arah yang lebih baik, coba aja bandingin kemerataan kesempatan sekarang dibanding seabad lalu

progres itu ada, maksain end result tanpa melihat progres yang ada itu ngawur