ObjectivityIncarnate

Not quite. 🤓 Humans and monkeys are both primates.

There was an attempt

women struggling in the office when they did not put on makeup that specific day, how the behavior of random strangers changed etc.

It’s simply the difference that’s being noticed, and no one’s really at fault for that, on either side. Any woman who never wears makeup is also never going to get the same ‘are you sick?’ kind of reactions on any given day she doesn’t wear makeup to work.

Same, I’m really grateful she has no interest/desire to wear makeup. It was also nice to know what her face looked like from day 1, which is what this app is meant to facilitate.

The more I think about it, the stranger the notion of ‘gatekeeping her real face’ behind a full-on relationship sounds to me, lol.

P.S. lol, I just remembered reading an old ‘hack’ for this years and years ago: make a water park your first outing together.

Your opportunities in life are absolutely dependent on your wealth. Those hoarding wealth are stealing opportunity from everyone.

What if the wealth you possess was created by you? Wealth isn’t zero sum, it’s created all the time (and at a rate literally not achievable simply by underpaying employees, to pre-refute the expected response). The implied premise of ‘because they have it, we don’t have it’ just doesn’t hold any water.

Also, it doesn’t really make sense to call it ‘hoarding’ when it’s largely/all invested in businesses that run within the economy. To hoard something is to keep it isolated–investments in publicly-traded companies can never truly fairly be called “hoarding”. You could only fairly call the funds kept in back accounts etc. unspent ‘hoarded’.

$500 says you’ve never replied to a post where a woman implies her ex-husband was a bad person with “I hate my ex husband, haha, men bad”

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?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only reason I know of for cis kids to use puberty blockers is as a measure against the condition precocious puberty, which basically means the body is going into puberty too soon.

If that’s correct, then this isn’t really a good argument, because using drugs to delay premature puberty until its ‘normal time’ is very different from delaying ‘normal time’ puberty to a future ‘late time’–the latter moves the body into an abnormal state, while the former movies out out of one.

Isn’t that kind of like arguing that because we’ve been using blood thinners successfully for a long time (leaving out that it’s used primarily on people who are prone to blood clots to treat that condition), that there’s definitely no harm in prescribing blood thinners to people with regular blood?

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?

I also said “generally speaking”, you know.

Generally speaking, that’s a poor way to decide what to support.