(no subject)
11/8/10 18:26![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsTangent: It may not mean nothing to ya'll
but understand nothin was done for me
so I don't plan on stoppin at all
I want this shit forever
I thoroughly dislike this dismissal of past actions.
Ain't NOBODY in this world got to where they were without something being done for them.
I do not understand why we fail to see our interconnected roots and how we need to work together.
Actual point of inquiry:
Let's say you were unemployed and work prospects were grim. However, political group X is hiring! You, unfortunately, believe in political group Y--where Y and X are not quite polar opposites, but close.
Do you take the job?
In other words:
For democrats: If the only job you could find in 2012 was campaigning for Sarah Palin, would you take it?
For republicans: If the only job you could find was working for ACORN (tho they don't exist anymore) would you take it?
A friend of mine works at Wal-Mart. He doesn't like Wal-Mart. He's actually pretty anti Wal-Mart, and with good reason. But he needed a job. And sure, he could do the same job at Target and get virtually the same treatment. But that's not the point--be it a job at McDonalds or Burger King, a shit job is a shit job. And sometimes I give him crap for working at Wally-World, but then, I must remember, that a job is a job.
I wonder: how far away from your political persuasion would you go to find work?
Would those of you who hate the drug war go to work for the DEA if they were the only work you could find?
I'm not sure exactly where I would draw the line--but I am fairly certain I would need a 7 figure salary to campaign for Sarah Palin. And even then, I'd look for ways to sabotage the campaign (without getting caught, of course)
(no subject)
Date: 11/8/10 22:41 (UTC)Look at it this way: if you're about to become nationally famous/infamous for an act of political treachery, then your minimum-wage days are firmly behind you.
hypothetically:
Date: 11/8/10 22:44 (UTC)At best you'd be able to throw a monkey wrench into the works--and for that you'd get 15 minutes of fame, and be looked at as Monica Lewinsky....
Re: hypothetically:
Date: 11/8/10 22:58 (UTC)Re: hypothetically:
Date: 11/8/10 23:17 (UTC)To get something juicy, you'd prolly need to craft deep cover.
And even then, as I said, how do you know if you're gonna become infamous for it, or if you're just gonna become Monica Lewinsky version2?
(no subject)
Date: 11/8/10 22:44 (UTC)Generally no, I wouldn't work for a Republican campaign, though there are certain republicans I'd consider.
As for Wal Mart, I don't think Wal Mart itself is evil, I think that the conditions that allow it to devastate small businesses is at issue. Wal Mart is acting on market demands and opportunities. There's plenty of other large businesses that cause the same sort of damage, and it's not because they're somehow 'evil'. I still wouldn't work at Walmart unless it was the last job though, because then I'd have to deal with people who shop at Walmart.
(no subject)
Date: 11/8/10 22:48 (UTC)Not paying people overtime--encourage employees to not report on-the-job injuries--[alleged] discriminatory firing practices--and the majority of the hate, for me, comes from their vehement anti-union practices.
They shut down an entire supercenter in Canada cause the workers wanted to unionize.
That puts them firmly in the "bad" category, in my book.
Would you campaign for Sarah Palin before you worked at Wal Mart? =)
(no subject)
Date: 11/8/10 22:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/8/10 23:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 00:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 02:35 (UTC)Why do you hate labor?
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 08:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 02:34 (UTC)It's why I like Rev. Billy and the church of stop shopping.
(no subject)
Date: 11/8/10 22:48 (UTC)Better?
Date: 11/8/10 22:55 (UTC)Re: Better?
Date: 11/8/10 23:03 (UTC)Re: Better?
Date: 11/8/10 23:15 (UTC)my gf is out of town for another week
you are a very mean man
Re: Better?
Date: 12/8/10 00:03 (UTC)Re: Better?
Date: 12/8/10 00:17 (UTC)Re: Better?
Date: 12/8/10 00:56 (UTC)Jayne is a girls name. Jayne's *MY* name.
Date: 12/8/10 00:59 (UTC)I was seriously considering posting that myself.
I have a cunning hat
Date: 13/8/10 02:35 (UTC)Re: Better?
Date: 12/8/10 03:49 (UTC)Re: Better?
Date: 12/8/10 04:05 (UTC)Re: Better?
Date: 12/8/10 06:42 (UTC)Re: Better?
Date: 12/8/10 12:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 03:42 (UTC)Compromising one's principles
Date: 11/8/10 23:54 (UTC)I must confess that I worked on a project that violated my moral principles. It involved working with people at the NSA. I didn't bat an eye since I knew they wouldn't actually buy the product. They were simply comparing it to competitive machines that easily beat the pants off of ours.
Re: Compromising one's principles
Date: 12/8/10 06:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 00:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 01:00 (UTC)You're anti-union right? So would you work for a union?
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 08:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 08:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 00:54 (UTC)As for your inquiry, I am reminded of a post a ways back (I want to say it was by
It was something to the effect of "Why do those poor ignorant rubes support the big business? They're poor why aren't they Democrats?"
The hypothosis put forth was "Because those same big businesses that Democrats spend so much time demonizing also sign paychecks."
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 05:27 (UTC)How important is an agreement between our personal views and our employers views?
Would a supporter of PETA work for a butcher, if it was the only place hiring?
Obviously we all need a paycheck. But where's that little voice saying: 'do something *good*--not something *greedy*'?
Then again, a little greed is much in need.
food and shelter are a must
(no subject)
Date: 13/8/10 02:34 (UTC)That is something we each have to answer for ourselves. The fact that your, and mine may be different from mine does not make our respective choices less valid.
As you said, when faced withe the choice between "_______ or Starve" politics takes on a whole new dimension.
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 02:33 (UTC)It's *ALL* real, sir!
You may deny the effects, but that does nothing to eliminate their very real existence.
" I work for who pays me the most money on a steady basis. "
So you are a mercenary?
No moral considerations?
Would you *personally* take food from starving children if paid enough steadily enough? And when I say personally, I mean, your hand takes the food directly out of their hand. Would you really not have a moral imperative *not to* regardless of steady pay?
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 05:03 (UTC)Nick Naylor: [out loud] "I just need to pay the mortgage."
Nick Naylor: [to self] The Yuppie Nuremberg defense.
(no subject)
Date: 12/8/10 07:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/8/10 15:55 (UTC)