General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 144

So you're arguing that was actually a better time and work environment for women, or am I misunderstanding your point?

 

No, I was just mentioning that the women in the fictionalized show seemed to be having a good time. Not sure about the real world Madison Ave. secretaries, but in Mad Men, things were cool.

 

I know people that have *shrug*

I also know people that went from cigs, to e-cigs, back to cigs.

 

The show where Peggy was harassed and treated poorly when she got a promotion and Joan (I think is the right name?) had to sleep with somebody to become partner and also was harassed like every day?

Edit: this is dumb nvm. I just don't think there's a realistic argument for that work environment being better for anybody except the white men of the time. Leaving it at that.

 

I did say secretaries, though.

I'm done with arguing over a fictionalized show.

 

I was talking about women and non-white men in general in that work environment. That was the whole reason it was mentioned. I'm done too. Just think we should be careful not to glorify times that probably weren't so good for everyone.

 

I think we all just want to smoke and drink alcohol at work, I don't think anyone was intentionally suggesting we should adopt the gender politics from the 1960s.

 

I don't know that sounds awful to me but I'm also straight edge

 

He said it was one of the best work environments, that's all I was responding to. The environment as a whole. But again, it's distracting from this thread so I'm gonna go back to just reading this thread and trying to learn from the regular posters. Sorry for jumping in.

 

to be fair i don't know of a single 'young' tech company that DOESN'T have beer drinking allowed in some form

 

I want to drink at work everyday.

 

Wasn't trying to deter you from participating, please continue participating!

 

I think I do my best work when I have a buzz going.

 

I'm usually the same way but apparently it's "frowned upon" when you're a camp counselor with 35 kids under your supervision.

 

Just want to point out that there is no such thing as secondhand drinking. That's possibly why cigarettes are taxed higher.

 

Well, while that's true, can we compare stats of driving while drinking and running people over and smoking while driving and doing the same thing?

 

One of my last jobs, still in engineering, it was actually written that we were allowed one alcoholic beverage during lunch breaks during the week. Drinking at company events such as lunches was also permitted.

 

My sister works at a hedge fund and they have their own beer dispenser and it's pretty common for workers to start drinking at 4pm

 

haha, wow. I feel like it's more common practice in sales/advertising/stock to drink during work hours.

 

My friend's company always has at least two cases (yes, two) of Heady Topper. And they're not even in VT

 

Bernie's right capitalism must be stopped

 

I'm sure I take between fifteen and twenty smoke breaks a day. It ruins productivity, and I'm fine with that. With regard to drinking, there is a definite class difference in terms of what is permitted. The lower the wage, the more regulated behavior is on every level. When I made nine dollars an hour, they timed our bathroom breaks. To tie together disparate conversations, the overlap lies in the behavior is being modified in a top-down fashion for lower-classes. As we go up the socioeconomic ladder, hedonism is seen as a reward for hard labor and efforts to modify their behavior is seen as detrimental to the economy.

 

"The Democratic Party leaders have trained their followers to perceive everything in terms of one single end-game equation: If you don't support us, you're supporting Bush/Rove/Cheney/Palin/Insert Evil Republican Here.

That the monster of the moment, Donald Trump, is a lot more monstrous than usual will likely make this argument an even bigger part of the Democratic Party platform going forward.

It's a sound formula for making ballot-box decisions, but the people who push it never seem content to just use it to win elections. They're continually trying to make an ethical argument out of it, to prove people who defy The Equation are, whether they know it or not, morally wrong and in league with the other side.

Beltway Democrats seem increasingly to believe that all people who fall within a certain broad range of liberal-ish beliefs owe their votes and their loyalty to the Democratic Party....When I think about the way the Democrats and their friends in the press keep telling me I owe them my vote, situations like the following come to mind. We're in another financial crisis. The CEOs of the ten biggest banks in America, fresh from having wrecked the economy with the latest harebrained bubble scheme, come to the Oval Office begging for a bailout.

In that moment, to whom is my future Democratic president going to listen: those bankers or me?

It's not going to be me, that's for sure. Am I an egotist for being annoyed by that? And how exactly should I take being told on top of that that I still owe this party my vote, and that I should keep my mouth shut about my irritation if I don't want to be called a Republican-enabler?

The collapse of the Republican Party and its takeover by the nativist Trump wing poses all sorts of problems, not the least of which being the high likelihood that the Democrats will now get even lazier when it comes to responding to their voters' interests. The crazier the Republicans get, the more reflexive will be the arguments that we can't afford any criticism of Democrats anymore, lest we invite in the Fourth Reich."

The Return of Lesser Evilism | Rolling Stone

 

Do you guys watch Real Time? I'm listening to the latest one with Emily Miller and Lawrence Wilkerson, talking about gun control and things of the like. Man, I forgot just how hard this show is to listen to. Every single talking point is broken by an applause break and holy fucking shit I can't get past it.

Anyway, this episode is a lot like the conversation we had a few days ago. I know I spouted off some questionable views, but man oh man, there is some serious ignorance going on here on both sides (Miller and Wilkerson). The argument is of course, gun control laws do not work, and guns are for home protection (purpose of the second amendment according to Miller which is wrong).

Wilkerson makes an argument that because he's 71 years old and no one has ever broken into his home, there is no need to own a gun for home protection (he owns guns but hunts).

I suggest listening to it on iTunes, dated 6/17.