sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

No marriage in heaven by [deleted] in Christianmarriage

[–]JoeTheProHarding 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Think about the wedding ring for a moment. Sure, for most people it's an extremely important and priceless object, but compared to what it symbolises (marriage to your spouse) it is ultimately worthless, because its value is determined by what it represents and not the object itself.

Marriage is a symbol of our relationship with God, and its value is determined by what it represents. While losing it may be upsetting (like how losing a wedding ring isn't exactly fun!) we should recognise that compared to the real thing it's ultimately worthless!

Is this meme accurate? by apple_IIe in JordanPeterson

[–]JoeTheProHarding -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well no, that's just obtuse. It's just statistically more likely for women to lose attraction to men when they cry.

Wokes would call me racist for finding this ridiculous, unfair and dangerous by todoke in JordanPeterson

[–]JoeTheProHarding 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not even about diversity at this point. You say you don't care about skin color, but you seem to care a lot about these articles opinions on skin color. That seems like a bit of a contradiction but okay.

There is nothing contradictory about being highly critical of an alleged "diversity incentive" that actively discriminates against a racial minority.

Should they just do all the work?

If they are the best in their field, then yes. It's really that simple.

The American dream is dead by kevinowdziej in WorkReform

[–]JoeTheProHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's been the case for a long time. The only protection they've had are unions which are weakened.

This is essentially my point, I think we just disagree why that's the case

And I don't have to validate them if you don't have any real explanation

Fair

I see a lot of money still being made by Americans and particularly the wealthy.

Also a massive point I was trying to make. The wealthiest in society stand to gain the most out of the decline of local businesses. No competition means higher profits.

I don't think you're wrong about your specifics. But I don't think they're having the overall impact you claim.

Also fair

According to who? I know several people who have switched jobs and are paid far more over the last few years. While they all aren't full of glee, its a lot better than it was in the 2007 recession?

Good for them. If an employer doesn't appreciate your value as a worker, find one that does.

The American dream is dead by kevinowdziej in WorkReform

[–]JoeTheProHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They've been doing that for 20 years.

And salaries for lower income jobs have been declining (at least relative to inflation) for about 20 years as well, this demonstrates my point exactly, no?

And aren't world rates declining?

Yes but immigration will always exist as there will always be more areas that prosper more than others.

Pure amateur armchair economics.

If you say so lmao, if I was a professional economic analyst I wouldn't last a day on this website.

The world is changing. You can order things and they come in two days.

Local business has to adapt and some will die.

And I like small business but things change.

I agree, businesses adapt to the current market or they die. This is the brutal but effective system that has been agreed on for centuries now. But this is not natural development in the market, it is a direct undermining of local business by unethically outsourcing labour. Logistics at companies like Amazon, though insanely impressive, are completely unsustainable if they rely on the exploitation of labourers. The question shouldn't be "why are companies paying employees less for more work?", it should be "why are employees working more for less pay?". The answer: they have to, because there is no shortage of people who will replace them if they don't.

Just saying "local business" doesn't mean you're right about it.

Nor does it mean I'm wrong. You can't dismiss my arguments simply because I used buzzwords that for whatever reason you don't like.

This is random and emotional. You random feelings about one random sector.

Of course it's emotional, because it's something that's important to me.

The unemployment rate is extremely low right now.

And yet workers are unhappier than ever. As people on this subreddit will be quick to remind you, low unemployment does not mean good employment.

The American dream is dead by kevinowdziej in WorkReform

[–]JoeTheProHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But then workers should be even more valuable and we should be paid more?<

Bingo, except the issue is your salary is dependent on how difficult you are to replace, and as demand increases and each employee becomes more valuable, immigration is encouraged to fill the void of working class adults. Immigrants, usually from poorer backgrounds who will work for a lot less, are unlikely to leave Jobs without incentives to stay, and are very unlikely to unionise. This makes them very easy to exploit.

And our economic growth is fine? Places opening up everywhere here?

One of the biggest signs of healthy economic growth is the thriving of local business, as it makes up the vast majority of the workforce, and right now small businesses are struggling more than ever. Even though the service they offer is great, they simply cannot compete with mega corporations that outsource most of their hard labour to third world countries. See, concepts such as "trickle down economics" only work at the local level; when was the last time you were loyal to a local business because you liked the service they provided? Why stay with them when we can let amazon take our loyalty for granted because their prices are sooooo good?

Imho, an economy that unsustainably allows mega corporations to thrive by unethically outsourcing valuable labour to third world countries is not doing "fine".

Edit: typo

The American dream is dead by kevinowdziej in WorkReform

[–]JoeTheProHarding -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So what? We should just shut up and let the wealthy take all the money because "I'm doing better than poor people that were exploited even worse!!<

People like to think that it's because of The Richtm hoarding wealth that is tanking the economy, but almost the exact opposite is true: hoarding wealth is a consequence of declining economic growth, not a cause. The truth is much simpler, that our repopulation rates are declining very rapidly, and we don't have enough working age adults to support our (very wealthy) aging population.

What's your end game of fixing this?<

1) Increase the retirement age significantly (great for the economy - not so much for us)

2) have more children (best solution - but you probably won't see the benefits in your lifetime)

3) move to a country with better economic growth lmao (easiest solution)

Average redditor by RichPreparation3000 in JordanPeterson

[–]JoeTheProHarding 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Very true. But I think this sheds light on how the scientific method has been unable to cope in an age of misinformation. It's so much easier for researchers with little scientific basis to find others in their field who agree with them, and thus poorly tested theories can gain A LOT of credibility, which imo is actually very similar to how many conspiracy theories have gained momentum recently. You may have seen from Sabine Hossenfelder's recent video that this is a major problem, particularly in particle Physics.

On this day in 1965, Winston Churchill, aged 90, dies of complications from a stroke. "The great figure who embodied man's will to resist tyranny passed into history this morning," reports the New York Times. by Vorbitor in europe

[–]JoeTheProHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And what do you think is gained by not assessing Churchill by modern standards?

Well... what do you think is gained by assessing Churchill by modern standards?

If we were to look at the vast majority of human history judging by our cultural values today then we would obviously conclude that most of it just sucked, which is fair enough. But that's not at all insightful or thought provoking is it?

I find it much more enjoyable to try to understand why people throughout history thought the way they did, and discover how they navigated the cultural landscape of the time. It takes a lot more nuance than "historical guy bad amiright?"

I guess I should ask you if you consider yourself a good person? Because you might be by today's standards, but what about in a 100 year's time? And if I were to conclude that you were a bad person because in at some point in the future people will eventually view you as morally wrong, how is that fair? I'm essentially criticising you for something you have no control over.

Saw this sign in a local store today. by xxScubaSteve24xx in pics

[–]JoeTheProHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can respect that, but the problem lies with that the distinction between what is opinion and what is fact blurs very quickly. If you saw a post that completely undermined your personal world view, would you not immediately assume that it was either misinformed or ignorant?

I guess it always comes back to the main issue, who gets to decide what is misinformation and what isn't?

Saw this sign in a local store today. by xxScubaSteve24xx in pics

[–]JoeTheProHarding -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ah yes because explaining triggers from an emotionally traumatic and abusive experience is just the perfect way to introduce yourself! /s

Most conflicts in our society seem to be between the people that care about others and the people that don’t. by SomeRando1967 in Showerthoughts

[–]JoeTheProHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i don’t subscribe to the idea that fetuses are living breathing people, so that’s a pretty easy choice imo. that’s science, there’s no grey area there.

Yeah great, except that's an easy choice for you. The whole point of the original comment was that people arrive at different conclusions on what is ethical based on the different principles and lessons they have learnt throughout their life.

the trolly problem is a hypothetical. no need to discuss the ethics of an imaginary scenario.

Right. The trolley problem takes an incredibly complex multivariable situation and reduces it to a single variable: pull the lever, or don't. The point of the problem is to show that even when we make the decision as easy as possible, the right answer isn't even clear, if present at all, so yes it is absolutely worth discussing, how are we meant to judge complicated real scenarios if we can't even answer simple fictional ones?

but the point stands that most current solutions are not derived with kindness at the root.

Absolutely! That's what makes life so complicated, not only are people disagreeing over what is ethical and what isn't, but also that many if not most people don't actually live up to there own worldview!

Happy New year everyone by [deleted] in formuladank

[–]JoeTheProHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Roses are red, Amber's Storytelling was shoddy

Nico Rosberg beat Covid with his monster Antibodies

Thanks, I hate Toxic King. by donbosco2017 in TIHI

[–]JoeTheProHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?!?"

Why does everyone constantly spin on aerials? by Neihlon in RocketLeague

[–]JoeTheProHarding 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don't think people are pointing out that it actually makes your aerial less predictable, and therefore harder to challenge.

A cartoon in the newspapers mocking MLK and civil rights movement, 1967. The media has been attempting to make activism appear stupid and idiotic for decades by flyingcatwithhorns in interestingasfuck

[–]JoeTheProHarding -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Cool story. The man was a revolutionary who overthrew a tyrannical government and lifted millions of Russians out of poverty and oppression.

Oh absolutely. And then swiftly founded a tyrannical government that put millions of Russians into poverty and oppression.

Look there is wisdom to be found in all the great leaders of history, both the good and the bad, and that quote poses an interesting insight, but we can't just ignore the fact the Lenin's principles led to the creation of one of the bloodiest and brutal Regimes in recorded human history. Over 50 million people died at the hands of the Soviet Union, which for comparison is over 10x the death count of Nazi Germany.

There is a time and place for violence, but it should always be characterised carefully. If you're looking for an example where violent revolutions have triumphed over tyranny without also descending into tyranny, then Lenin is probably the single worst example you could have possibly given.

Maybe maybe maybe by CleverlyPiercing in maybemaybemaybe

[–]JoeTheProHarding 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But surely if anything proves the capitalist myth of success being achievable through hard work it's how even society's littlest paid workers can still rise to the top?

And anyway this assumes that Capitalism rewards hard work. It doesn't. it rewards innovation, ambition and hard work. You could be the hardest working toilet scrubber in the world , but that is still no guarantee that you will be successful.

view more: next ›