Posts Tagged ‘solidarity’
I don’t mind that History Channel has given up on history. If you’re just flipping through channels Pawn Stars is probably the best thing on. But I do fault History Channel for stripping ancient people of their achievements like cheap sci-fi grave robbers and encouraging people to believe what’s fun rather than what has evidence. The whole premise of the show is “Humans are too stupid to build anything of value”, but the only good argument for this is made unintentionally, through the existence of the show itself.
In the one episode I watched, a plumbing company’s CEO uses a fake name to attempt entry-level work at his own company. After realizing how difficult life is for his underlings, he grants a few of them privileges (healthcare for one employee’s autistic son, a promise not to outsource his factory’s workers) that in a decent society would be entitlements. This program teaches that cross-class understanding, historically the least effective means of obtaining justice, is the only way.
(I’m also uncomfortable with A Christmas Carol.)
America’s Funniest Home Videos
If you were a dictator who wanted to deaden the empathy of your subjects, can you imagine a better show than AFHV? This man is hurt! Look! Laugh! You are not him!
1) I don’t want to live in a shitbag world of murder, terrorism, and arbitrarily stunted lives. Misogyny is an antihuman malignancy to which feminism is the cure.
2) The feminist critique of masculinity frees me to express the full range of human emotions without fear.
3) Feminism doubles the number of my potential friends and allies. Women are not an alien race I lust after but contemn; they’re people. This makes the world a lot less frightening.
Millions of people like you struggle to find employment, a scarce but vital resource. Instead of working to remove one of those adjectives, use these tactics to get the jump on your brothers and sisters.
That’s the tone of a lot of “job search tips” articles, and it’s fucking insufferable. Look at this one:
New college grads are not known for their copious amounts of spending money. However, there are a few things you will need to spend money on to be prepared for those first interviews. Think of these items as long-term investments in your future. They are as necessary as your new degree to score a good position out of college.
As good as my degree, eh?
For men, this means at least one pair of nice dress slacks, which fit you well and look expensive. … White, royal blue and silver are the hottest fashion colors but are also classics that make any many look sleek, professional and sexy.
Pretending to be rich: a reasonable requirement for entry-level positions. Also be sexier.
Ladies, you will need a similar job interview wardrobe, but you may do a knee-length pencil skirt instead of slacks. You may also want to swap the suit coat for a hip-length blazer. Choose simple dress shoes without the sexy details. A sleek peek-toe or Mary Jane with a one to two inch heel is ideal. Avoid boots, high-heels or strappy sandals which can appear too sexy and backfire.
But not too sexy! Try mind-reading to find the sweet spot that fits the interviewer’s arbitrary prejudices.
Next, purchase one package of nice resume paper with a watermark. Add a package of letterhead and envelopes which match the color. If you get cream resume paper, you should get cream letterhead. Avoid extreme yellows which can look cheap. Go for a subtle off-white tone.
The kicker is that none of these tips would work if everyone followed them. The message is exclusive–follow these tips so that you, individually, can avoid the rest of your generation’s sorrows.
The average job search can take more than six months, and this is especially true for recent college graduates seeking their first entry-level positions.
Searching for unemployment is unpaid, unpleasant, unproductive labor. Expecting people to do this for six months for the privilege of paid work is not a rational way to run an economy. And encouraging young people to see their peers as rivals in an arms race of conspicuous consumption can’t be healthy for a culture.
“Don’t trust anyone over thirty” was one of the dumbest slogans in American politics.
I’ve seen a lot of optimism about the growth of non-religious people, the spectacular boom in gay rights over the last two decades, and the increasing skepticism in national leaders towards drug prohibition. But the fading of sixties-era generational antagonism on the left is just as heartening. As John Quiggin points out, generational analysis doesn’t really hold up, and it can only hurt us.
One of the coolest things about the Occupy movement was how age didn’t seem to matter. Unemployed parents and their unemployed children showed up. The leadership of Occupy Orlando seemed to be a coalition of fifty-year-old activists and college-age folks. And that makes sense, because the privatizers don’t care if you’re young or old, they’re gutting your benefits regardless.
It’s true that older people are more likely to be overtly racist, sexist and anti-gay. But the logical solution is to bash bigots, instead of letting young assholes off the hook and leaving these folks in the crossfire.
A Roland Emmerich-style 100-foot wave was attacking my city, and the sturdiest building to hide behind was the pharmacy. I met up with my coworkers there, and said (since I have a one-track mind for politics), “Now’s the perfect time to demand a union. Hell, we could probably kill the boss and blame it on the wave.”
They didn’t seem convinced. One coworker argued against my plan. “This wave won’t kill anyone, they’d find out.”
I wasn’t having it. “Come on,” I replied, “people die in heat waves. Surely THIS will kill people.”
“No,” she continued, “our boss is a racist.”
I was puzzled. “That’s an even better reason to kill her!”
Having convinced no one, I went in alone. I stole a pair of scissors right in front of the boss (“for self-defense” I told her). But I reconsidered the murder plot and decided to steal a pair of glasses instead. The wave might cut off the supply of replacement contact lenses, and I knew at least I deserved to see clearly.
If I were conservative I would argue that some people have homosexual inclinations, and this is a fact of human existence that will not go away, leaving us with two options: either law-abiding home-owning middle-class gay couples or the orgiastic riots of a global Stonewall-Gomorrah. Marriage is good for social stability, so bring gay people into marriage, and make the binary a smidgen more fabulous.
But I can’t argue this, because I’m not a conservative, and I hope it’s wrong. I’m for same sex marriage because I’m a straight man who isn’t entirely sure what “straight” or “man” mean, so I support anything that helps bring gender down from the the world of the forms into the raucous parade of spectra that is reality.