The not-so-subtle misogyny of equating adult women with children, depriving them of all agency, strikes yet again.
The not-so-subtle misogyny of equating adult women with children, depriving them of all agency, strikes yet again.
It’s not victim blaming because he’s not referring to the same women you are. Like it or not, there are plenty of women (no one is saying it’s all or most women, by the way) who will pursue rich men with the desire for a purely transactional “I’ll fuck you so I can have your wealthy lifestyle and/or a part of your fame.” They’re perfectly content with that arrangement, as are said men.
Johnny Depp’s girlfriends for decades have basically all been women in this category, even now that he’s way past his prime aesthetically. The women accusing Trump of sexual impropriety are, obviously, NOT in this category.
Women are not a hivemind–different types of them can exist in the same society, you know.
He was tried and found guilty of raping a woman.
That’s not true. He’s never been convicted of a sex crime. “Found liable” in a civil court and “found guilty” in a criminal court are VASTLY different, and require VASTLY different standards of evidence.
It’s important to be accurate.
Atheism isn’t a religion, likewise asexuality is not a sexual orientation, but the lack of one, I say.
(emphasis added)
Men aren’t allowed to discuss their feelings because men have created a society that looks at them as losers for doing so.
The implication here, that societal norms are created and maintained by only men, and therefore any aspects of it that affect men negatively deserve to be blamed on them, is one of the most pervasive anti-male sentiments that people try to fly under the radar with. Women have at least as much (arguably more) influence on societal norms and conventions, as men do.
This entire comment is teeming with this undertone; that is, until the end, when they come out and just say ‘all the bad stuff is men’s fault’ at the end, lol.
Everyone loves building strawmen. If you think only “they” do it, it’s because you’re unquestioningly accepting the ones that confirm your biases.
deleted by creator
sacking hundreds of actually productive employees.
If they were “actually productive”, sacking them would hurt the bottom line, not help it.
You lot are constantly talking about how workers are uniformly short-changed on their labor by their employers, underpaid for it and therefore being a profit source for employers, but you never explain why any business would do layoffs like this if that was the case, lol. Do these people who got laid off make the company money or not?
70% of that $2.4 million should have been taxed
It’s literally post-tax income already, lol.
What you are describing is essentially the roguelike/lite genre, lol. Search up some of that, see if anything looks fun.
That is one horrendous logo, lol
It works in that show because the entire family are losers, and they all get mocked by all the others, regularly.
True equality, lol.
He seems to be on board by the last panel, lol
The only way to fight this is to raise the minimum wage to something that is livable for the average worker.
Then what do you do when only the Amazons and Walmarts of the world with the deepest pockets can afford that, and small business basically ceases to exist, as a result? People talk a lot about ‘if you can’t pay a livable wage you don’t deserve to be in business’, but the same people also complain about monopolies and lack of choice at the same time. How do you propose this be reconciled?
Also, no one’s ever going to be able to begin to enforce a “living wage”, even if they wanted to, until that wage is given a concrete definition–at the very least, a formula with variables to account for cost of living differences across the country. Until then, all this clamoring for a “living wage” is completely pointless.
Labor is the source of all profit. How would the company make money if no one did anything?
Charge the customer more for the finished product than what it cost to produce it. Obviously.
The simple fact is that if employees were a source of profit, businesses would all try to hire as many people as they possibly could, because not doing so would literally be leaving money on the table for no reason. But obviously that is not what goes on. When a business is in trouble financially, what’s more common, a hiring freeze, or a hiring spree?
making massive profits off the work of their employees.
Labor is a cost, not a source of profit, what kind of moronic statement is this? If employees were a source of profit, the notion of downsizing would never exist–why would a company ever lay anyone off, if workers create more value than their wage?
Even the founder of Costco (only stepped down as CEO a few years ago), a company famous both for how well it treats its customers, and its workforce?
you trying to defend an indefensible point of view
The fact that “living wage” has yet to be defined by its proponents in a meaningful and concrete way, such that it could realistically even be proposed as a policy, is not even a “point of view”. That’s just a fact.
I simply refuse to even acknowledge your demented talking points because
Please, we both know the real reason. If what I was saying was so clearly false, you’d expose its fallacy instead of making these ridiculous excuses.
You have to understand that nobody gives a shit about you licking the boots of rich assholes.
Stating facts isn’t bootlicking, no matter how much you pretend it is.
But hey, I’ve been wrong before.
It’s seeming more and more like it’s an especially fond hobby of yours.
Yeah, if someone shoplifts from a store, the punishment/penalty should not involve confiscating the car they drove to the store, lol.