My experience as a troll tells me it's because most of mankind frankly is -very- stupid, and easily strung along and made to believe incredibly stupid things, or gets angry about things that aren't worth sweating over.
Road rage is often done out of anger, anyway. Trolling is done for laughs. Trolling is more akin to pranking people than trying to get back at them.
Of those you mentioned, I own Brawl and Twilight Princess.
The problem is, the games you listed have been out awhile, not that it's a very long list to begin with, and nothing great seems to be coming up over the horizon.
Then the Wii's online implementation is very flawed for gaming, as many games do require spit-second timing, particularly FPSes. Of course good coding can help overcome lag; but it does not seem that SSBB's online coding was remarkable.
Yes, maybe us proletarians can also take Nintendo's means of productions and stick it to those bourgeoisie Japanese businessmen!
Obviously it's your right to a Wii console and a Cheap and Affordable Price For You! Don't let any evil, sinister Republican politician or conservative demagogue tell you otherwise, comrade!
The problem is, the DS has -plenty- of quality games, whereas the Wii seems to be utterly lacking. Even the N64, it seems to me, had more quality games I could buy instead of typical platformers based on shitty kids movies or something. With the Wii I'm extremely underwhelmed. It's just collecting dust at the moment.
I'm not trying to troll, not at all--I own a Wii and no other current-generation consoles.
But where's the games! The Wii has so much potential, with its unique controller, and yet, I find so few games interested in playing.
I don't care about top-notch graphics. If I want that, I'll play my PC. What I do want are actual quality games instead of more shovelware. Where are they?
I wonder how many of these sales are due to people playing Wii Sports alone? I'm rather underwhelmed at the Wii's selection...
Oh, andoOnline gaming especially is important to me, and they really dropped the ball on Super Smash Bros. Brawl--the online is terrible, something reminiscent of 56k gaming, almost, just with better graphics. I haven't played the Wii's iteration of Mario Kart, which I probably should rent, but I have a feeling it's not much better (although, feel free to enlighten me on this).
Part of the reason our SOL is so high is because we have Chinese laborers making things on the cheap.
Your understanding of economics is all fucked up, frankly, right down to your zero sum understanding of SOL.
And yes, it is racist to want to partition an "us" vs. "them". To me, there's not even an "us", if you're a Chinese worker or an American worker it matters not in the end with free trade (for the most part--I'm simplifying things).
Of course you probably oppose free trade too, something about poor coffee growers or something.
The Indian/Chinese norm is rising, not falling due to rapidly increasing economies in large part BECAUSE we go there because they are more competitive.
I know you think your US middle class standard of living is the benchmark that everyone should be judged by, but that's only a reactionary measure. We're near the top of the heap.
You haven't really thought this through, because once they no longer have an incentive to export jobs they no longer get those jobs (there would be little reason to export jobs!) and they're having an even harder time finding a job. I don't know if you're racist against Indians or Chinese or what, but to deny them jobs because "Americans deserve them" or "they should be American jobs" or "America is the benchmark by which everyone should live!" is only going to result in people elsewhere suffering.
Yes, but these days you hear more talk of needing more direct democracy--look at the constant bitching about the electoral college, for instance.
Anyway, in instances where in essence we're democratic (voting, etc), democracy fails just like capitalism "fails"--if, to your standards, what occurs is "failure" (which always means, of course, at least a somewhat good outcome in one's own terms).
A free market is simply an unregulated market; an "ideal" market or something would probably be what you are describing. A free market says nothing of what the prices are, the barriers to entrance or, or how much competition there is. A free market is, at its most basic, one thing: products being sold and customers (be they other businesses or individual consumers) buying them for that price.
Trying to create an "ideal" market means you 1) have to prevent the masses from making a decision they would have made because they are too short-sighted to make the good "proper" decision, 2) take away freedoms because of that fact. And then "ideal" is subjective anyway--"ideal" in this case usually means "serves me the best", and has little to do with "free".
Freedom is messy and few really want it. They just want what's best for them, and they call it freedom, but it's not.
I like how he's presumably into the whole unity/Obama thing and yet he gets upset over some "Other" person getting a job that presumably "SHOULD" have gone to an "AMERICAN".
Might as well get rid of any imported goods where foreign laborers or workers made it. Yep, everything's gotta be local, otherwise we're being screwed!
Of course, he holds the silly premise that just because they sell products he has to give them money for in his local area that they should only hire people in his area, which makes no sense but invokes some tribalistic anger within him.
Nonsense. People with an agenda always want to paint "the masses" in a rosy picture of hard-working, smurf-like proletariat struggling to get buy. The reality is the "masses" are fat off Big Macs, know they are bad for you, and don't really care so long as they are happy.
You make a lot of very vague claims, like using science to "manipulate" people; I presume you are implying the tailoring of advertisements to try to entice to buy a product or service? There is a lot of scare mongering in your post but you qualify none of it.
The average person, the innocent hoi polloi as you want to paint them, does this on a daily basis; guilt trips so someone will do you a favor, withholding some of the truth to avoid shame or to take responsibility in fear of a negative outcome; a girl using her good looks to get favors from guys is little different from advertisers using sex to sell things, and so on: these are all intrinsically human, and what you write is simply a fact of existence. It's true we are not absolutely free-acting agents but little can be done.
As for education, people have enough time to educate themselves reasonably. They are just more concerned with watching the next episode of Generic Sitcom or trying to get attention from the opposite sex to really care.
Try talking about science with the average person, and see if they care.
They don't and they'll try to change the conversation to cars or a movie or something.
The world you want to live in simply requires a type of man that does not exist.
Quite blaming "the system". The rich, the powerful, they're not controlling or hurting you. The masses are not innocent smurfs; bread and circuses applies here quite well
The reality is, and always has been, most people don't really care.
More than half the time someone brings up "free market", they have no idea what they are talking about. A great deal of the time it's projecting an idealized version of what the market is supposed to be in their own heads, like the poster above you.
A free market is an unregulated market, with no government subsidies, bailouts, handouts, or funding, where the customers ultimately are responsible for the successes or failures for business based on whether they patronize them.
If this does not work, then democracy does not work, as it'll fail just as hard or harder for the precise same reasons--apathy, ignorance, malice, or what have you. Of course, market capitalism doesn't really make decisions for you, it simply allows more or less avenues and possibilities for you to enjoy or pursue, while government steps in and forces you to do something (or not do something) at the threat of punishment.
You probably knew that--that was aimed moreso at other people than you.
Secondly, the free market only "fails" (what is a failure? What is "fair" supposed to even mean in the context you use it--your personal opinion on how business should operate or people should be paid? Meaningless.) when the people allow it to fail. You can talk about empowering people to vote and democracy and all that crap, but if the free market "fails" because it means certain businesses get "too large", then democracy itself cannot work as the people will allow even greater and worse failures to occur with government, as you can avoid a corporation--not so the government.
Maybe you're upset that certain laborers can out-compete local labor; normally I thought the left was all into helping other people, but then I realized if 1) someone local is losing out 2) it's being helped through getting a job then it's no good. Outsourcing isn't evil, not unless you have a populistic "us vs. them" mentality; break free of those notions and realize it doesn't matter who gets a job, you're neither owed a job nor does one owe you a job. That Indian guy getting a job or that Chinese guy getting a job probably, y'know, needs the money--but of course, since it's a job, I'm sure you'll label it "exploitation" and wave it away with some sort of communist gobbledegook about the "bourgeoisie". Outsourcing is virtually no different from exporting a product. If that troubles you you can always just enjoy fresh produce and the beautiful ty-die t-shirts made at your local commune instead and not buy imported crap.
For the left to be so quick to talk about "Othering" people, it seems to be the modus operandi when it's outsourcing. Anything to make business look bad, though, right?
Americans are not fans of the free market, at least, not really, and are becoming less so, as nobody wants to be accountable for shopping at places which may become "monopolies" like Microsoft. For every Microsoft, Walmart, or Starbucks there are many, many customers buying their products and supporting any possible shady activity they do.
The left simply wants to control people, they want them to "behave" according to their ideas of what "behaving" is, to push an agenda of economic egalitarianism because of the "power disparity" or whatever terms they'll use because they've taken the idea of "equality" to an extreme where everyone is equally in chains.
You can believe what you want, but don't pretend what you're advocating is freedom. Freedom isn't always efficient, it's not always even pretty; freedom does not mean "allowing what I like and disallowing what I don't like"; and freedom is far from "making decisions for people or preventing them from making decisions I'd disagree with or find abhorrent".
And it's slashdot that will kick you off if it IS against their terms of use; it shouldn't be the government's job to stick people in the pokey for silly things like that--although I may just be old-fashioned with this new "social responsibility" nonsense that's popular these days.
Then it's myspace's crap to deal with, not the government's. What people to do themselves because of hurt feelings should not be the matter of criminal enforcement.
Ehmm, yes, that is pretty much the way it works in large parts of western europe and we like it that way, thank you very much.
Ahahahahahahaha! Oh Christ, that's rich!
Europe always makes me giggle, if I lived over there I'd be sure not to hire a maid--too risky. How ridiculous. Socialism really does have a strong grip over there, huh?
And a concept you came up with all on your own since it has nothing to do with anything I said. A classic attempt at a straw man argument, though perhaps you knew that already.
Under no circumstances do you deserve a job or should a job be rightfully yours; anyone offering the job, thus, can hire (and fire) for any reason whatsoever. You have no "right" to a job, from anyone.
And all of this has what to do with legal protections against being terminated (or not hired) for political activities? I am not arguing that anyone is "entitled" a job. I'm arguing that their politics (like race, gender, age, etc) should not be considered in hiring or as cause for termination. It's not that radical an idea.
Because once again, the job is not yours for the taking, it is a position offered by someone else, and they can choose and discriminate in any sense they see fit, be they only hire friends or people they personally like, or people that can do the job the best. It matters not; it's their job to offer.
Additionally, it's nearly impossible to tell why you got fired most of the time; usually the reason is simple: they no longer need you, or you are incompetent at your job.
You find it strange because you either have never engaged in political activity or haven't thought about the current environment. Or both.
Business controls the political process through money, not numbers. The other 90+ percent of the population has its vote (numbers) and its willingness to invest energy in the political activity. Through (political) employment discrimination business has cast a chill on people's willingness to invest their private time and energy in political change. The act of exercising your rights as a citizen could cost you your livelihood. So business not only perverts the system through its cash but also the sword it wields over people's income. That's unacceptable and a danger to democracy itself.
Short of killing business executives, how would you expect to redress the situation if not by the power of government? All efforts thus far to limit the influence of money on the political process have failed and as long as money is considered speech (and corporations considered "persons") it isn't going to change. At least by preventing business from engaging in political employment discrimination some manner of balance can be maintained.
People keep voting in one half of the criminals--"the people" are truly the gatekeepers in the end, not business--and then business, they are continually patronized by "the people". You want someone to blame? Look in the mirror. You want it all, a nice car, an easy life, but are unwilling to accept the tradeoffs and unwilling to take responsibility for yourself, just like the rest of the country, or even the world, is. You want an easy answer and that's praying to the gods (in this case, the government) to save you. Of course, they won't... and in this case, can't, without putting people on an even smaller leash.
By "communist principles" you must mean commitment to democracy, multi-party voting, political activism, and a balance of power through equal votes and legal protections.
Sorry but your effort to paint people as ingrates for wanting to remove the corporate foot from their necks just isn't working for a lot of us.
Thank you for your whitewashing of Marxism 101 with rather vague "happy sentiments" like "democracy", "political activism", "a balance of power", etc, but you've said rather nothing there.
If the corporate foot is on your neck, you put it there. You are NOT a slave to your workplace, despite what you probably tell your friends ("I'm a damn wage slave! This is intolerable!") and they are not a slave to you and do not have to hire you on their terms, whether it's considered more "ethical" or not (and by this I mean hiring you because you are a Republican/Democrat/etc.. in some aspects, it's more than understandable, who wants to hire a petty Marxist that probably
Yes, they are called laws. In the same way that we no longer tolerate allowing 8 yo kids to work 12 shifts in coal mines or allow "groups" to dump toxic waste in the water supply.
Those are absolutely different scenarios than having a person agree to terms upon accepting a job. You aren't owed a job, nor are you owed their money. A fascinating concept.
And I am suggesting that political speech protections should be extended to prevent retribution from employers. These protections were less necessary in the past because corporations didn't have such a strangle hold on the government nor were the private actions of citizens so easily tracked. Now both those conditions are all too true and greater protections are required.
Again, this "gimme" mentality is frightening: you are not owed the job, it is not something you are "entitled" to, they offer it to whom they want, when they want, much like you call up the plumber when you want and on your terms (and what they agree with).
I find it strange when you talk about business getting a stranglehold on government, when that's really a different issue and your solution is... more government? What do you think is going to happen?
No, that's life as you apparently are willing to accept it. The many combining forces to fight the powerful few isn't coddling, it's the only viable method of equalizing the situation. You may think you are Rambo however most people are mature enough to know how ridiculous a notion that is.
It has nothing to do with Rambo; it has more to do with not accepting communist principles and the idea that that world is supposed to work exactly as I want it to all the time.
I'm not owed a job, or anything, from anyone; if worst case scenario they don't like who I am then that's business and I go elsewhere. The fact that the government and business are in bed or that someone can look up what you put on your own myspace profile for the world to see are really different issues altogether.
Maybe you should be more careful about your own reputation if it's so sullied you cannot find a job, or be a little smarter with what you say to people.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience as a troll tells me it's because most of mankind frankly is -very- stupid, and easily strung along and made to believe incredibly stupid things, or gets angry about things that aren't worth sweating over.
Road rage is often done out of anger, anyway. Trolling is done for laughs. Trolling is more akin to pranking people than trying to get back at them.
It is. I played it on the PC; I'd recommend renting it. It's probably even more fun with the Wii's controller.
Was the zombie killing game Resident Evil 4?
Of those you mentioned, I own Brawl and Twilight Princess.
The problem is, the games you listed have been out awhile, not that it's a very long list to begin with, and nothing great seems to be coming up over the horizon.
The fact that the Wii wouldn't carry the game range of games is/was obvious, yes.
The problem is Nintendo isn't bringing anything new to the table, really--doesn't even seem to be a new franchise.
Then the Wii's online implementation is very flawed for gaming, as many games do require spit-second timing, particularly FPSes. Of course good coding can help overcome lag; but it does not seem that SSBB's online coding was remarkable.
Yes, maybe us proletarians can also take Nintendo's means of productions and stick it to those bourgeoisie Japanese businessmen!
Obviously it's your right to a Wii console and a Cheap and Affordable Price For You! Don't let any evil, sinister Republican politician or conservative demagogue tell you otherwise, comrade!
Barack Obama '08!!!!
The problem is, the DS has -plenty- of quality games, whereas the Wii seems to be utterly lacking. Even the N64, it seems to me, had more quality games I could buy instead of typical platformers based on shitty kids movies or something. With the Wii I'm extremely underwhelmed. It's just collecting dust at the moment.
I'm not trying to troll, not at all--I own a Wii and no other current-generation consoles.
But where's the games! The Wii has so much potential, with its unique controller, and yet, I find so few games interested in playing.
I don't care about top-notch graphics. If I want that, I'll play my PC. What I do want are actual quality games instead of more shovelware. Where are they?
I wonder how many of these sales are due to people playing Wii Sports alone? I'm rather underwhelmed at the Wii's selection...
Oh, andoOnline gaming especially is important to me, and they really dropped the ball on Super Smash Bros. Brawl--the online is terrible, something reminiscent of 56k gaming, almost, just with better graphics. I haven't played the Wii's iteration of Mario Kart, which I probably should rent, but I have a feeling it's not much better (although, feel free to enlighten me on this).
True, but they don't exactly advertise THIS "feature".
Part of the reason our SOL is so high is because we have Chinese laborers making things on the cheap.
Your understanding of economics is all fucked up, frankly, right down to your zero sum understanding of SOL.
And yes, it is racist to want to partition an "us" vs. "them". To me, there's not even an "us", if you're a Chinese worker or an American worker it matters not in the end with free trade (for the most part--I'm simplifying things).
Of course you probably oppose free trade too, something about poor coffee growers or something.
The Indian/Chinese norm is rising, not falling due to rapidly increasing economies in large part BECAUSE we go there because they are more competitive.
I know you think your US middle class standard of living is the benchmark that everyone should be judged by, but that's only a reactionary measure. We're near the top of the heap.
You haven't really thought this through, because once they no longer have an incentive to export jobs they no longer get those jobs (there would be little reason to export jobs!) and they're having an even harder time finding a job. I don't know if you're racist against Indians or Chinese or what, but to deny them jobs because "Americans deserve them" or "they should be American jobs" or "America is the benchmark by which everyone should live!" is only going to result in people elsewhere suffering.
Yes, but these days you hear more talk of needing more direct democracy--look at the constant bitching about the electoral college, for instance.
Anyway, in instances where in essence we're democratic (voting, etc), democracy fails just like capitalism "fails"--if, to your standards, what occurs is "failure" (which always means, of course, at least a somewhat good outcome in one's own terms).
A free market is simply an unregulated market; an "ideal" market or something would probably be what you are describing. A free market says nothing of what the prices are, the barriers to entrance or, or how much competition there is. A free market is, at its most basic, one thing: products being sold and customers (be they other businesses or individual consumers) buying them for that price.
Trying to create an "ideal" market means you 1) have to prevent the masses from making a decision they would have made because they are too short-sighted to make the good "proper" decision, 2) take away freedoms because of that fact. And then "ideal" is subjective anyway--"ideal" in this case usually means "serves me the best", and has little to do with "free".
Freedom is messy and few really want it. They just want what's best for them, and they call it freedom, but it's not.
I like how he's presumably into the whole unity/Obama thing and yet he gets upset over some "Other" person getting a job that presumably "SHOULD" have gone to an "AMERICAN".
Might as well get rid of any imported goods where foreign laborers or workers made it. Yep, everything's gotta be local, otherwise we're being screwed!
Of course, he holds the silly premise that just because they sell products he has to give them money for in his local area that they should only hire people in his area, which makes no sense but invokes some tribalistic anger within him.
Nonsense. People with an agenda always want to paint "the masses" in a rosy picture of hard-working, smurf-like proletariat struggling to get buy. The reality is the "masses" are fat off Big Macs, know they are bad for you, and don't really care so long as they are happy.
You make a lot of very vague claims, like using science to "manipulate" people; I presume you are implying the tailoring of advertisements to try to entice to buy a product or service? There is a lot of scare mongering in your post but you qualify none of it.
The average person, the innocent hoi polloi as you want to paint them, does this on a daily basis; guilt trips so someone will do you a favor, withholding some of the truth to avoid shame or to take responsibility in fear of a negative outcome; a girl using her good looks to get favors from guys is little different from advertisers using sex to sell things, and so on: these are all intrinsically human, and what you write is simply a fact of existence. It's true we are not absolutely free-acting agents but little can be done.
As for education, people have enough time to educate themselves reasonably. They are just more concerned with watching the next episode of Generic Sitcom or trying to get attention from the opposite sex to really care.
Try talking about science with the average person, and see if they care.
They don't and they'll try to change the conversation to cars or a movie or something.
The world you want to live in simply requires a type of man that does not exist.
Quite blaming "the system". The rich, the powerful, they're not controlling or hurting you. The masses are not innocent smurfs; bread and circuses applies here quite well
The reality is, and always has been, most people don't really care.
More than half the time someone brings up "free market", they have no idea what they are talking about. A great deal of the time it's projecting an idealized version of what the market is supposed to be in their own heads, like the poster above you.
A free market is an unregulated market, with no government subsidies, bailouts, handouts, or funding, where the customers ultimately are responsible for the successes or failures for business based on whether they patronize them.
If this does not work, then democracy does not work, as it'll fail just as hard or harder for the precise same reasons--apathy, ignorance, malice, or what have you. Of course, market capitalism doesn't really make decisions for you, it simply allows more or less avenues and possibilities for you to enjoy or pursue, while government steps in and forces you to do something (or not do something) at the threat of punishment.
You probably knew that--that was aimed moreso at other people than you.
First off, don't pretend to speak for me.
Secondly, the free market only "fails" (what is a failure? What is "fair" supposed to even mean in the context you use it--your personal opinion on how business should operate or people should be paid? Meaningless.) when the people allow it to fail. You can talk about empowering people to vote and democracy and all that crap, but if the free market "fails" because it means certain businesses get "too large", then democracy itself cannot work as the people will allow even greater and worse failures to occur with government, as you can avoid a corporation--not so the government.
Maybe you're upset that certain laborers can out-compete local labor; normally I thought the left was all into helping other people, but then I realized if 1) someone local is losing out 2) it's being helped through getting a job then it's no good. Outsourcing isn't evil, not unless you have a populistic "us vs. them" mentality; break free of those notions and realize it doesn't matter who gets a job, you're neither owed a job nor does one owe you a job. That Indian guy getting a job or that Chinese guy getting a job probably, y'know, needs the money--but of course, since it's a job, I'm sure you'll label it "exploitation" and wave it away with some sort of communist gobbledegook about the "bourgeoisie". Outsourcing is virtually no different from exporting a product. If that troubles you you can always just enjoy fresh produce and the beautiful ty-die t-shirts made at your local commune instead and not buy imported crap.
For the left to be so quick to talk about "Othering" people, it seems to be the modus operandi when it's outsourcing. Anything to make business look bad, though, right?
Americans are not fans of the free market, at least, not really, and are becoming less so, as nobody wants to be accountable for shopping at places which may become "monopolies" like Microsoft. For every Microsoft, Walmart, or Starbucks there are many, many customers buying their products and supporting any possible shady activity they do.
The left simply wants to control people, they want them to "behave" according to their ideas of what "behaving" is, to push an agenda of economic egalitarianism because of the "power disparity" or whatever terms they'll use because they've taken the idea of "equality" to an extreme where everyone is equally in chains.
You can believe what you want, but don't pretend what you're advocating is freedom. Freedom isn't always efficient, it's not always even pretty; freedom does not mean "allowing what I like and disallowing what I don't like"; and freedom is far from "making decisions for people or preventing them from making decisions I'd disagree with or find abhorrent".
Yes, because vague "catch-all" laws are just as good as laws misapplied!
And it's slashdot that will kick you off if it IS against their terms of use; it shouldn't be the government's job to stick people in the pokey for silly things like that--although I may just be old-fashioned with this new "social responsibility" nonsense that's popular these days.
Then it's myspace's crap to deal with, not the government's. What people to do themselves because of hurt feelings should not be the matter of criminal enforcement.
Ehmm, yes, that is pretty much the way it works in large parts of western europe and we like it that way, thank you very much.
Ahahahahahahaha! Oh Christ, that's rich!
Europe always makes me giggle, if I lived over there I'd be sure not to hire a maid--too risky. How ridiculous. Socialism really does have a strong grip over there, huh?
And a concept you came up with all on your own since it has nothing to do with anything I said. A classic attempt at a straw man argument, though perhaps you knew that already.
Under no circumstances do you deserve a job or should a job be rightfully yours; anyone offering the job, thus, can hire (and fire) for any reason whatsoever. You have no "right" to a job, from anyone.
And all of this has what to do with legal protections against being terminated (or not hired) for political activities? I am not arguing that anyone is "entitled" a job. I'm arguing that their politics (like race, gender, age, etc) should not be considered in hiring or as cause for termination. It's not that radical an idea.
Because once again, the job is not yours for the taking, it is a position offered by someone else, and they can choose and discriminate in any sense they see fit, be they only hire friends or people they personally like, or people that can do the job the best. It matters not; it's their job to offer.
Additionally, it's nearly impossible to tell why you got fired most of the time; usually the reason is simple: they no longer need you, or you are incompetent at your job.
You find it strange because you either have never engaged in political activity or haven't thought about the current environment. Or both.
Business controls the political process through money, not numbers. The other 90+ percent of the population has its vote (numbers) and its willingness to invest energy in the political activity. Through (political) employment discrimination business has cast a chill on people's willingness to invest their private time and energy in political change. The act of exercising your rights as a citizen could cost you your livelihood. So business not only perverts the system through its cash but also the sword it wields over people's income. That's unacceptable and a danger to democracy itself.
Short of killing business executives, how would you expect to redress the situation if not by the power of government? All efforts thus far to limit the influence of money on the political process have failed and as long as money is considered speech (and corporations considered "persons") it isn't going to change. At least by preventing business from engaging in political employment discrimination some manner of balance can be maintained.
People keep voting in one half of the criminals--"the people" are truly the gatekeepers in the end, not business--and then business, they are continually patronized by "the people". You want someone to blame? Look in the mirror. You want it all, a nice car, an easy life, but are unwilling to accept the tradeoffs and unwilling to take responsibility for yourself, just like the rest of the country, or even the world, is. You want an easy answer and that's praying to the gods (in this case, the government) to save you. Of course, they won't... and in this case, can't, without putting people on an even smaller leash.
By "communist principles" you must mean commitment to democracy, multi-party voting, political activism, and a balance of power through equal votes and legal protections.
Sorry but your effort to paint people as ingrates for wanting to remove the corporate foot from their necks just isn't working for a lot of us.
Thank you for your whitewashing of Marxism 101 with rather vague "happy sentiments" like "democracy", "political activism", "a balance of power", etc, but you've said rather nothing there.
If the corporate foot is on your neck, you put it there. You are NOT a slave to your workplace, despite what you probably tell your friends ("I'm a damn wage slave! This is intolerable!") and they are not a slave to you and do not have to hire you on their terms, whether it's considered more "ethical" or not (and by this I mean hiring you because you are a Republican/Democrat/etc.. in some aspects, it's more than understandable, who wants to hire a petty Marxist that probably
Yes, they are called laws. In the same way that we no longer tolerate allowing 8 yo kids to work 12 shifts in coal mines or allow "groups" to dump toxic waste in the water supply.
Those are absolutely different scenarios than having a person agree to terms upon accepting a job. You aren't owed a job, nor are you owed their money. A fascinating concept.
And I am suggesting that political speech protections should be extended to prevent retribution from employers. These protections were less necessary in the past because corporations didn't have such a strangle hold on the government nor were the private actions of citizens so easily tracked. Now both those conditions are all too true and greater protections are required.
Again, this "gimme" mentality is frightening: you are not owed the job, it is not something you are "entitled" to, they offer it to whom they want, when they want, much like you call up the plumber when you want and on your terms (and what they agree with).
I find it strange when you talk about business getting a stranglehold on government, when that's really a different issue and your solution is... more government? What do you think is going to happen?
No, that's life as you apparently are willing to accept it. The many combining forces to fight the powerful few isn't coddling, it's the only viable method of equalizing the situation. You may think you are Rambo however most people are mature enough to know how ridiculous a notion that is.
It has nothing to do with Rambo; it has more to do with not accepting communist principles and the idea that that world is supposed to work exactly as I want it to all the time.
I'm not owed a job, or anything, from anyone; if worst case scenario they don't like who I am then that's business and I go elsewhere. The fact that the government and business are in bed or that someone can look up what you put on your own myspace profile for the world to see are really different issues altogether.
Maybe you should be more careful about your own reputation if it's so sullied you cannot find a job, or be a little smarter with what you say to people.