5 ms·

> All it does is reinforce the perception that Republicans have nothing but contempt for the American worker. I disagree, they're playing into their base well

> All it does is reinforce the perception that Republicans have nothing but contempt for the American worker. I disagree, they're playing into their base well from a crabs-in-a-bucket mentality perspective. Much of their base associates remote working with pandemic measures, which they believe were unnecessary and exaggerated. They associate the types of jobs that can be done remotely as jobs belonging to "coastal elites"/liberal tech workers/pampered college grads/government employees who belong to the swamp/etc. Those exist in contrast to the perceived base of "real" workers, whose jobs are likely physical and can't be done remotely, and who feel strongly about pandemic mitigations. Their response to workers who are hesitant to work in-person is that "the pandemic is over, it's time to go back to work", and workers who want to remain remote are painted as lazy, insubordinate and entitled parasites. In effect, this bill is hurting the "right" people and there are plenty of constituents who want to use the legal system to do just that: stick it to the people they don't like. Taking away privileges from government employees does exactly that.

metacritic12 4y ago
This makes a lot more sense. Whenever you have to choose between Theory A: the other side is evil / hateful and Theory B: the other side is optimizing their self-interest (in this case getting elected by their base), Theory B seems to be the more correct and useful one.
- r00fus 4y ago
  False dichotomy. Why not both?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pohl 4y ago
> reinforce the perception that Republicans have nothing but contempt for the American worker. I disagree...this bill is hurting the "right" people and there are plenty of constituents who want to use the legal system to do just that: stick it to the people they don't like. This reads to me more like an elaboration on the above rather than a disagreement with it. After all, the "right people" being hurt are, in fact, American workers.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  My interpretation is that their base will not perceive this as contempt for American workers, but as a boon for "real" workers who don't want to support the laziness of entitled workers who want to work from home. This can be perceived as pro-worker from that perspective.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  The base doesn't consider those people "True" americans and don't think they deserve rights.
  - taylodl 4y ago
    The base doesn’t consider anybody thinking differently from them as a “true” American and as such are undeserving of rights. Frankly, I’m getting really sick and tired of these people.
jorblumesea 4y ago
Yep, same idea behind many of the tax code changes (SALT deduction), or immigration rhetoric and posture. It's fine to hurt people, so long as we're hurting the right people.
throw0101c 4y ago
> crabs-in-a-bucket mentality perspective Ref: > Crab mentality, also known as crab theory,[1][2] crabs in a bucket (also barrel, basket, or pot) mentality, or the crab-bucket effect, is a way of thinking best described by the phrase "if I can't have it, neither can you".[3] > The metaphor is derived from anecdotal claims about the behavior of crabs when they are trapped in a bucket. While any one crab could easily escape,[4] the claim is its efforts will be undermined by others, ensuring the group's collective demise.[5][6][7] > The analogous theory in human behavior is that members of a group will attempt to reduce the self-confidence of any member who achieves success beyond the others, out of envy, jealousy, resentment, spite, conspiracy, or competitive feelings, to halt their progress.[8][9][10][11] The same claims about behaviour are embodied in the phrase tall poppy syndrome. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality From the §See also: > He observed a self-interested, family-centric society, which sacrificed the public good for the sake of nepotism and the immediate family. As an American, Banfield was witnessing what was to become infamous as the Southern Italian Mafias and a self-centered clan-system promoting the well-being of their inner group at the expense of the other ones. Banfield postulated that the backwardness of such a society could be explained "largely but not entirely" by "the inability of the villagers to act together for their common good or, indeed, for any end transcending the immediate, material interest of the nuclear family."[1] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Basis_of_a_Backward_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Basis_of_a_Backward_...

metacritic12 4y ago

This makes a lot more sense. Whenever you have to choose between Theory A: the other side is evil / hateful and Theory B: the other side is optimizing their self-interest (in this case getting elected by their base), Theory B seems to be the more correct and useful one.

r00fus 4y ago
False dichotomy. Why not both?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pohl 4y ago

> reinforce the perception that Republicans have nothing but contempt for the American worker. I disagree...this bill is hurting the "right" people and there are plenty of constituents who want to use the legal system to do just that: stick it to the people they don't like. This reads to me more like an elaboration on the above rather than a disagreement with it. After all, the "right people" being hurt are, in fact, American workers.

heavyset_go 4y ago
My interpretation is that their base will not perceive this as contempt for American workers, but as a boon for "real" workers who don't want to support the laziness of entitled workers who want to work from home. This can be perceived as pro-worker from that perspective.
mrguyorama 4y ago
The base doesn't consider those people "True" americans and don't think they deserve rights.
- taylodl 4y ago
  The base doesn’t consider anybody thinking differently from them as a “true” American and as such are undeserving of rights. Frankly, I’m getting really sick and tired of these people.

jorblumesea 4y ago

Yep, same idea behind many of the tax code changes (SALT deduction), or immigration rhetoric and posture. It's fine to hurt people, so long as we're hurting the right people.

throw0101c 4y ago

> crabs-in-a-bucket mentality perspective Ref: > Crab mentality, also known as crab theory,[1][2] crabs in a bucket (also barrel, basket, or pot) mentality, or the crab-bucket effect, is a way of thinking best described by the phrase "if I can't have it, neither can you".[3] > The metaphor is derived from anecdotal claims about the behavior of crabs when they are trapped in a bucket. While any one crab could easily escape,[4] the claim is its efforts will be undermined by others, ensuring the group's collective demise.[5][6][7] > The analogous theory in human behavior is that members of a group will attempt to reduce the self-confidence of any member who achieves success beyond the others, out of envy, jealousy, resentment, spite, conspiracy, or competitive feelings, to halt their progress.[8][9][10][11] The same claims about behaviour are embodied in the phrase tall poppy syndrome. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality From the §See also: > He observed a self-interested, family-centric society, which sacrificed the public good for the sake of nepotism and the immediate family. As an American, Banfield was witnessing what was to become infamous as the Southern Italian Mafias and a self-centered clan-system promoting the well-being of their inner group at the expense of the other ones. Banfield postulated that the backwardness of such a society could be explained "largely but not entirely" by "the inability of the villagers to act together for their common good or, indeed, for any end transcending the immediate, material interest of the nuclear family."[1] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Basis_of_a_Backward_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Basis_of_a_Backward_...