8 ms·

Your labor and skills are not owed because they got lucky, they are owed because that is what you are exchanging with the owner for money. They may tolerate (a

Your labor and skills are not owed because they got lucky, they are owed because that is what you are exchanging with the owner for money. They may tolerate (and even enjoy) your personal quirks and causes, but they are paying you to get things done that they don't have the time or skill to do themselves. [Edit: Accidentally left ou a letter]

Opt_Out_Fed_IRS 5y ago
> Your labor and skills are not owed because they got lucky, they are owed because that is what you are exchanging with the owner for money. But if everybody is woke (and that is the case given that we are talking about tech and California) then the company has no choice but to accept wokeness because the money becomes a non factor if it can't be offered to somebody who is not woke . The supply of non woke workers just isn't there. Employees will keep wokeing about until they are replaced with non woke workers at the same price point or slight premium due to the efficiency gained by not having political discussions on the job
- nitrogen 5y ago
  The supply of non woke workers just isn't there The responses to the Basecamp and Coinbase announcements were equally mixed between people who wanted to avoid them, and people who want to seek them out. There are plenty of people who want work to be about working together on work. I for one want work to be welcoming and productive for everyone. Ironically, the best way to accomplish that is to focus on work, and not non-work.
  - cgrealy 5y ago
    > I for one want work to be welcoming and productive for everyone. Ironically, the best way to accomplish that is to focus on work, and not non-work. Sure, if you’re a white, middle-aged, straight, cis male (speaking as one myself). But for other people, it’s not as easy to “leave your politics at home”, especially if you’re politics are “can I please be paid fairly in comparison to other workers” or “sorry, I’m late for work, the police unnecessarily stopped me because of my race” or even “I can’t get a job at this company because of my sexuality”. The fact is, the world is changing and companies have to change with it. It’s happened before (women in the workplace for example) and it’s going to keep happening. Everything is political. Even saying you don’t have a position is tacit endorsement of the status quo. Obviously, there are reasonable limits and expected standards of behaviour. It’s not ok to harass your coworkers about a political cause and it shouldn’t impact your ability to do your job. But we are all going to have to deal with it.
    - Opt_Out_Fed_IRS 5y ago
      > Even saying you don’t have a position is tacit endorsement of the status quo. No it's not. It's a statement that your goal is to elevate yourself as an individual not via group association Because duh you delegate the group elevation part to the representatives you select when casting your vote That's the whole point. Delegate group elevation so you can take care of business with regards to your own individual social elevation
      - bollu 5y ago
        What does it mean to elevate onseelf as an individual? I don't follow
        Opt_Out_Fed_IRS 5y ago
        It means that you are not interested when a politician or a work based group with political ideas (official or unofficial) tries to "recruit" you and join their cause telling you that they are fighting to elevate your rights and status. You'll simply decline knowing full well that you can elevate yourself just as much (actually way more) solely with your hard work and performance.
        cgrealy 5y ago
        This is exactly what I'm talking about. Perpetuating the complete and utter nonsense that political issues are personal and not systemic. The notion that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps with enough hard work and determination is simply not true for most people.
        Opt_Out_Fed_IRS 5y ago
        > The notion that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps with enough hard work and determination is simply not true for most people. And? Once you go to the polls and elect politicians which represent your interests...what else can you do? Might as well focus on yourself once you are done voting. Talking about stuff is very lame and unproductive. You are not better off financially after you are done talking politics with other people
  - dkdk8283 5y ago
    I avoid woke workplaces. I’m much, much happier. I don’t give a shit about politics or activism and it just gets under my skin.
    - PurpleFoxy 5y ago
      Agreed, as long as there isn’t some major issue internally (sexism/racism) that affects your ability to work, or the work itself is an issue (being made to create distasteful content for example) I don’t want to think about politics at all. I don’t want to have outside matters pushed on me while working regardless of how much I agree with them. I’ll happily engage in activism outside of work where people aren’t forced to sit around me every day.
- caymanjim 5y ago
  There is an enormous supply of workers who don't want social and political issues in the workplace, but silently acquiesce because saying anything gets you branded negatively and quickly canceled. It doesn't matter if you agree but prefer keeping it out of the workplace; you must either support the woke brigade or keep your mouth shut.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    You don’t think conservatives do exactly the same thing? Cancelling isn’t unique to the left nor something that just recently started.
    - seneca 5y ago
      > You don’t think conservatives do exactly the same thing? Cancelling isn’t unique to the left nor something that just recently started. Yes, conservatives did the same thing during Mccarthyism, and it's widely accepted to have been a bad thing. A different group having made the same mistake in the past is a reason not to do it again, not an excuse to do more of it.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        Conservatives currently use cancelling as a tactic as well.
        ryder9 5y ago
        have for the longest time, remember rock bands in the 70s, satan panic, gay panic, "gangster rap", dixie chicks after 9/11, trans bathroom thing but they're also the best at gaslighting and projecting
        tonfreed 5y ago
        And that makes it ok how, exactly?
        5y ago
BobbyJo 5y ago
Exactly. The fundamental basis of capitalism is voluntary exchange. Either party can set their own conditions, and are free to decline the conditions of the other. Everything not part of that exchange is, well, not part of that exchange.
unclebucknasty 5y ago
It's clear that people are exchanging their labor/skills for money. Your parent is referring to where that money comes from and why some people have it, while others must exchange their labor/skills for it. It's pretty clear that capital is running away with the game right now. Until that's rectified, your argument about exchanging labor and skills for money makes your parent's point rather than negating it. That is, the exchange is only free among parties with relatively equal power (at least collectively). And, if it's not a free exchange then your point is moot.
sudosysgen 5y ago
"Your labour and are not owed because they got lucky, they are owed because that is what you are exchanging with the lord for the privilege to work this land" "Your labour and skills are not owed because they got lucky, they are owed because that is what you are exchanging with the owner to pay back your debt and earn your freedom" You can use that logic to justify any oppression as long as you frame it in the language of property. It's not a valid argument - you don't have a choice but to exchange for money because you're in a position where you have no choice but to engage in oppressive social structures or face the violence of the state if you want to survive. It's not a choice. You have a (metaphorical) pistol to your head to engage with the system as it is, die, or be killed. Its really not so different from what your ancestors as serf or as debt slaves in antiquity might have lived. As long as you live in a society where private property in absentia (ultimately based on theft, might I add) exists, the "choice" to exchange is colored by violence and is far from truly free.
- kortilla 5y ago
  > It's not a choice. You have a (metaphorical) pistol to your head to engage with the system as it is, die, or be killed. This is ridiculous. In the US people constantly quit to start small businesses, work for other businesses, or just not work at all. There is zero threat of violence if you choose not to work. Additionally, there is no concept of debt slavery at all outside of the military (which is probably the most successful socialist institution in the US). There is no forced labor to pay down debt. > private property in absentia (ultimately based on theft, might I add) Based on theft from who? If I grow some cucumbers in my garden, who have I stolen them from?
  - scatters 5y ago
    > If I grow some cucumbers in my garden, who have I stolen them from? The cucumbers aren't stolen, but the land is. Ultimately almost all private property in land was dispossesed of common ownership or previous inhabitants. Not that you need to feel guilty about it, but you do need to pay your taxes.
  - mayniac 5y ago

Opt_Out_Fed_IRS 5y ago

> Your labor and skills are not owed because they got lucky, they are owed because that is what you are exchanging with the owner for money. But if everybody is woke (and that is the case given that we are talking about tech and California) then the company has no choice but to accept wokeness because the money becomes a non factor if it can't be offered to somebody who is not woke . The supply of non woke workers just isn't there. Employees will keep wokeing about until they are replaced with non woke workers at the same price point or slight premium due to the efficiency gained by not having political discussions on the job

nitrogen 5y ago
The supply of non woke workers just isn't there The responses to the Basecamp and Coinbase announcements were equally mixed between people who wanted to avoid them, and people who want to seek them out. There are plenty of people who want work to be about working together on work. I for one want work to be welcoming and productive for everyone. Ironically, the best way to accomplish that is to focus on work, and not non-work.
- cgrealy 5y ago
  > I for one want work to be welcoming and productive for everyone. Ironically, the best way to accomplish that is to focus on work, and not non-work. Sure, if you’re a white, middle-aged, straight, cis male (speaking as one myself). But for other people, it’s not as easy to “leave your politics at home”, especially if you’re politics are “can I please be paid fairly in comparison to other workers” or “sorry, I’m late for work, the police unnecessarily stopped me because of my race” or even “I can’t get a job at this company because of my sexuality”. The fact is, the world is changing and companies have to change with it. It’s happened before (women in the workplace for example) and it’s going to keep happening. Everything is political. Even saying you don’t have a position is tacit endorsement of the status quo. Obviously, there are reasonable limits and expected standards of behaviour. It’s not ok to harass your coworkers about a political cause and it shouldn’t impact your ability to do your job. But we are all going to have to deal with it.
  - Opt_Out_Fed_IRS 5y ago
    > Even saying you don’t have a position is tacit endorsement of the status quo. No it's not. It's a statement that your goal is to elevate yourself as an individual not via group association Because duh you delegate the group elevation part to the representatives you select when casting your vote That's the whole point. Delegate group elevation so you can take care of business with regards to your own individual social elevation
    - bollu 5y ago
      What does it mean to elevate onseelf as an individual? I don't follow
      - Opt_Out_Fed_IRS 5y ago
        It means that you are not interested when a politician or a work based group with political ideas (official or unofficial) tries to "recruit" you and join their cause telling you that they are fighting to elevate your rights and status. You'll simply decline knowing full well that you can elevate yourself just as much (actually way more) solely with your hard work and performance.
        cgrealy 5y ago
        This is exactly what I'm talking about. Perpetuating the complete and utter nonsense that political issues are personal and not systemic. The notion that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps with enough hard work and determination is simply not true for most people.
        Opt_Out_Fed_IRS 5y ago
        > The notion that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps with enough hard work and determination is simply not true for most people. And? Once you go to the polls and elect politicians which represent your interests...what else can you do? Might as well focus on yourself once you are done voting. Talking about stuff is very lame and unproductive. You are not better off financially after you are done talking politics with other people
- dkdk8283 5y ago
  I avoid woke workplaces. I’m much, much happier. I don’t give a shit about politics or activism and it just gets under my skin.
  - PurpleFoxy 5y ago
    Agreed, as long as there isn’t some major issue internally (sexism/racism) that affects your ability to work, or the work itself is an issue (being made to create distasteful content for example) I don’t want to think about politics at all. I don’t want to have outside matters pushed on me while working regardless of how much I agree with them. I’ll happily engage in activism outside of work where people aren’t forced to sit around me every day.
caymanjim 5y ago
There is an enormous supply of workers who don't want social and political issues in the workplace, but silently acquiesce because saying anything gets you branded negatively and quickly canceled. It doesn't matter if you agree but prefer keeping it out of the workplace; you must either support the woke brigade or keep your mouth shut.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  You don’t think conservatives do exactly the same thing? Cancelling isn’t unique to the left nor something that just recently started.
  - seneca 5y ago
    > You don’t think conservatives do exactly the same thing? Cancelling isn’t unique to the left nor something that just recently started. Yes, conservatives did the same thing during Mccarthyism, and it's widely accepted to have been a bad thing. A different group having made the same mistake in the past is a reason not to do it again, not an excuse to do more of it.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Conservatives currently use cancelling as a tactic as well.
      - ryder9 5y ago
        have for the longest time, remember rock bands in the 70s, satan panic, gay panic, "gangster rap", dixie chicks after 9/11, trans bathroom thing but they're also the best at gaslighting and projecting
      - tonfreed 5y ago
        And that makes it ok how, exactly?
        5y ago

BobbyJo 5y ago

Exactly. The fundamental basis of capitalism is voluntary exchange. Either party can set their own conditions, and are free to decline the conditions of the other. Everything not part of that exchange is, well, not part of that exchange.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

It's clear that people are exchanging their labor/skills for money. Your parent is referring to where that money comes from and why some people have it, while others must exchange their labor/skills for it. It's pretty clear that capital is running away with the game right now. Until that's rectified, your argument about exchanging labor and skills for money makes your parent's point rather than negating it. That is, the exchange is only free among parties with relatively equal power (at least collectively). And, if it's not a free exchange then your point is moot.

sudosysgen 5y ago

"Your labour and are not owed because they got lucky, they are owed because that is what you are exchanging with the lord for the privilege to work this land" "Your labour and skills are not owed because they got lucky, they are owed because that is what you are exchanging with the owner to pay back your debt and earn your freedom" You can use that logic to justify any oppression as long as you frame it in the language of property. It's not a valid argument - you don't have a choice but to exchange for money because you're in a position where you have no choice but to engage in oppressive social structures or face the violence of the state if you want to survive. It's not a choice. You have a (metaphorical) pistol to your head to engage with the system as it is, die, or be killed. Its really not so different from what your ancestors as serf or as debt slaves in antiquity might have lived. As long as you live in a society where private property in absentia (ultimately based on theft, might I add) exists, the "choice" to exchange is colored by violence and is far from truly free.

kortilla 5y ago
> It's not a choice. You have a (metaphorical) pistol to your head to engage with the system as it is, die, or be killed. This is ridiculous. In the US people constantly quit to start small businesses, work for other businesses, or just not work at all. There is zero threat of violence if you choose not to work. Additionally, there is no concept of debt slavery at all outside of the military (which is probably the most successful socialist institution in the US). There is no forced labor to pay down debt. > private property in absentia (ultimately based on theft, might I add) Based on theft from who? If I grow some cucumbers in my garden, who have I stolen them from?
- scatters 5y ago
  > If I grow some cucumbers in my garden, who have I stolen them from? The cucumbers aren't stolen, but the land is. Ultimately almost all private property in land was dispossesed of common ownership or previous inhabitants. Not that you need to feel guilty about it, but you do need to pay your taxes.
- mayniac 5y ago