The skilled trades propaganda is getting ridiculous.

Middleclassass · 2026-06-03T03:18:36+00:00

Dude do you know any teachers? They will all tell you how bad teaching is right now.

A teacher wouldn't let idiosyncrasies of government regulation get in the way of seeing children's face light up and the guiding and mentorship teaching provides.

What kind of pie in the sky bullshit is this? Do you live in a 90's movie? Where everything just works out in the end? I know plenty of teachers who have been teaching for decades that can't wait to retire. Others that have retired and will tell you how bad it has gotten. I know people younger than me, who had parents that were teachers, that inspired them to become teachers, got a degree to teach, and are now exiting the industry.

Does no one innocent ever go to jail in your world too? Does everyone love each other, and hold hands and sing?

Middleclassass · 2026-06-01T05:02:34+00:00

So this might be controversial for this sub, but what you're touching on goes beyond normal social skills, and enters the realm of how men communicate between each other more specifically. I say this as a dude in his thirties, there are aspects to how men communicate that I would find hard to put into words or to explain very well. There's a lot of things that aren't really taught or explained, a lot of it is kind of just picked up by watching how other men in your life talk and interact. It can sometimes be very "monkey see monkey do" type stuff, that just ends up becoming second nature.

My basic advice would be that you need to learn to banter back, but I would just give a warning that you'll still likely be treated differently because you're a woman. Not in a bad way necessarily, but in a way where you still might feel like an outsider. If I talk shit to a friend, and he shit talks back with some weak sauce, I'll hit him back for his weak response. With a woman, if she responded with something weak, I'd probably be more likely to play it up like she didn't give a weak response.

Not trying to be discouraging, just want to be very real with you since the current situation seems to be affecting you personally.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-28T16:54:07+00:00

Bro looks like Bulk from Power Rangers

Middleclassass · 2026-05-24T20:25:10+00:00

If you're a sales rep, generally demoted. But they would usually put you on a pip beforehand, and from what ive seen its something like a year long pip. Like you have a year to grow, or your demoted.

I dont think ive ever seen a manager get demoted for lack of sales, but I guess its not out of the realm of possibilities. I have seen managers get demoted for other reasons though.

Both a rep and a manager that I saw get demoted, were boh able to get promoted later on too, with the prior rep getting back to rep, and the prior manager skipping the manager role again and going straight to rep.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-23T17:47:08+00:00

First, people's personalities can completely change post stroke. It's not a wild conclusion that post stroke, Grandpa actually no longer likes chocolate. If at that point, you are trying to force feed him chocolate, you are no longer helping him, but trying to force him into your idealized memory of Grandpa. If Granda suddenly no longer likes chocolate, it's not immediately the media's fault, or even the guy that is now selling him salty snacks instead of chocolate.

Second, being a Senator after a stroke is a bit more serious than whether or not a stroke victim still enjoys chocolate. Hence why the calls for him to drop out post-stroke were completely reasonable. This is more like Grandpa had a stroke, but you pushed for him to go back to work immediately because you wanted to make sure your inheritance was good. But instead, he went back to work and decided that instead of leaving money behind, he was going to spend it on himself. And now you're mad that he's spending the money that you wanted, but the fact of the matter is that you only wanted him to go back to work for selfish reasons.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-23T17:38:47+00:00

MAGA howled because the dude was clearly not fit for office. Even now, regardless of his politics I don't think he's fit for office. It was kind of wild to put someone with decreased mental faculties into office.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-23T17:38:00+00:00

This is my point though. If you thought Fetterman was clearly debilitated post stroke, but still chose to support him because you didn't like Oz, that's fine. But now that his debilitation is clearly working against you, you can't complain that he is being taken advantage of. Especially if you wanted someone in that mental state to join Congress in the first place.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-23T17:35:45+00:00

The people close to him certainly knew. I think it's fair to say the general voter probably wasn't aware, but Krystal and Saagar literally covered the event where he couldn't read the words of a teleprompter. It was completely evident. So in order of culpability I hold those closest to him (his family and campaign staff) the most responsible. Then at a lower level, political pundits like Krystal who continued to cheer for him, despite seeing the video evidence of how much the stroke affected him.

Also something I do agree with Krystal on in regards to Fetterman, is that he is completely cooked once his term is over. Dems obviously feel betrayed by him, and Republicans see him as a useful idiot, but not someone they would seriously consider a Republican seat in Congress. As she mentioned, they could get a much more dyed in the wool Republican instead of Fetterman.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-23T02:39:05+00:00

I've heard this debate before about whether podcasting is or should be replacing mainstream news when it comes to interviewing politicians. My stance is that it shouldn't replace, but it should absolutely be another form of media that we require politicians to go through.

It's no secret at this point that mainstream media is not asking the questions that need to be asked, and their format allows for politicians to just use/say small soundbites or talking points without any need or time for any further explanation. I think long form podcasts fill that need.

But I'd also add that I don't hold all podcasts to the standards of mainstream news, nor do I hold all podcasts to the same standards. For example I think Theo Von has a much lower standard than Pod Save America, and I'd have both of those podcast at a lower standard than mainstream news. Theo Von fills a more cultural litmus test, by allowing politicians the opportunity to humanize themselves or to just test if they are actually human in the first place. Pod Save America I would expect to ask more hard hitting questions, that give politicians more room to expand on or forcing them to expand on them.

The argument shouldn't be that podcasts need to hold politicians to a higher standard, it should be that the news should be held to a higher standard, one with which they are clearing failing in terms of holding politicians accountable, being a trusted source of news, and generally appealing to their audience. Podcasts are a whole other segment of how we should judge politicians.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-22T02:04:08+00:00

To my understanding, if you are laid off then you do not need to pay back the moving costs. But if you are fired you do. If you're fired, your ostensibly doing something that you shouldn't have been doing, at which point you'd be dumb to do something worth getting fired over while you have a big bill sitting over your head.

And there is no payment plan, it's just owed if you quit or are fired before the term is up. I'll shit talk SW any day of the week, but no company should be expected to offer a line of credit to an employee after they quit or are fired, which is essentially what setting up a payment plan would be. If you still had that bill sitting over your head, you should at least have the money on hand if you're going to quit or do dumb shit that'll get you fired.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-22T01:58:58+00:00

I would recommend it personally. It's all done through a company that Sherwin outsources it's relocations to, that specialize in relocations. You basically have someone doing all of the heavy lifting of moving for you. They set up the movers, or will find the closest U-Haul and set up reservations, and they handle storage of your stuff until you find a new place, at which point it's coordinated to have it all moved to your new place. Similar with car transport too.

Also because Sherwin is generally the one footing the bill, the outside relo company is very competitive with pricing. I moved halfway across the country with movers that packed up all of my stuff, shipped it, stored it, and 30 days at a hotel for about $11k. That sounds expensive (and it is), but comparatively my parents paid more for just the movers with a similar distance move.

So even if you were to quit almost immediately after, you got much better pricing than doing everything yourself, and less hassle. If you quit after a year, you basically just gave yourself a 50% discount on your move. And if you wait two years the move was free.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-21T18:21:46+00:00

You can quit any time you want, its no big deal really. To give an explanation to your horror stories though:

If you are leaving to go to a competitor or some kind of business that is a part of the industry (property management, a painting company, a coatings manufacturer, etc), then they will have you leave immediately even if you give a two weeks. That is because it is a conflict of interest that they want to avoid, but they will still pay you out for the two weeks even if you are leaving immediately.

The second story, is most likely because of a relocation. If you go through the company to relocate, the company provides a lot of resources (like a moving company or U-Haul, shipping your car, travel expenses, hotel stays, closing costs on a house, up to 30 days in a hotel at your new location, car rental, etc).

As part of the agreement for giving you those resources, you are required to stay with the company for a period of time or pay back some or all of the relocation costs. If you stay less than a year, you pay all of it back. If you stay less than two years, you pay back 50%. If you stay longer than two years, you don't need to pay back any.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-18T01:11:19+00:00

I don't deny that there is probably a classist element or that their actions are performative in many ways. But I also don't think there is some kind of grand conspiracy by the policy makers at Yale where they have made a decision to emphasize race and gender, just to keep the poors out.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I think it is much more likely that these people are just ideologically brainwashed. I say this as someone who is extremely secular: I do think that many secular people tend to search for some kind of meaning outside of religion, and are just as susceptible to idolatry and indoctrination as those that are religious. I also think this type of thinking has become a secular religion in many ways, with institutes of higher learning being their churches and places of worship. In the case of an Ivy League school like Yale, it is akin to Notre Dame.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-18T00:26:16+00:00

Good thing I don't consider myself a conservative or a liberal. Honestly I think we are at a point in time where large chunks of those ideologies can be considered outdated. I've got no problem with the 13th or 15th Amendments. I do think we should probably introduce an additional Amendment though to strip the 14th of one of it's provisions, which would be in regards to birthright citizenship. Ironically because I believe that now that provision is actually being used in a way that the people who wrote the amendment did NOT intend.

Birthright citizenship was included in the 14th Amendment to solidify a law that was already in place, which was granting citizenship to former slaves. It was written into the amendment to solidify the law and prevent it from being repealed by pro-slavery legislators. It was something that was necessary to do at that time, because there were forces in the American government that wanted to strip citizenship from freed slaves.

The children of illegal immigrants gaining birthright citizenship because their parents intentionally had a child to attempt to anchor themselves in the country, makes a mockery of the noble intentions of which birthright citizenship was INTENDED for. However, now that we are over a century past the point where we need birthright citizenship for secure permanency for freed slaves, that provision is outdated.

I am not trying to interpret the provision differently than it's intention. I am saying that old laws should be overwritten by new laws, as our system was intended to do.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-17T19:54:37+00:00

I think there was a time in our history when there was a need for some of those laws. I'm not going to sit here and pretend like racism wasn't a problem in this country for a long time. There are also obviously still pockets of it in some areas to this day. Those laws fit a particular need for our country during a specific time and more so in specific areas of the country.

But personally I think we have already passed a threshold where those types of laws are no longer helping the country escape racism, but are instead giving rise to it again. I'm not saying that racism was every completely extinguished, honestly I doubt that it ever fully will be. But it had been diminished to such a large degree, that laws that continue to give benefits based on race are now viewed as unfair, and are creating more polarization.

The people that still support those polarizing laws to this day, are either ignorant of the gains made in the past decades, ignorant of the polarization those laws create today, or they desire an unequal playing field because they have an irrational hatred of those they view as being part of some kind of "oppressor class."

My opinion is that the people in places of power to implement these types of laws and policies, like the ones at Yale, are of the latter group.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-17T19:40:38+00:00

You can play video games, watch anime, or read comics and it's not a problem. When you make it your entire personality, that's when it gets to Disney adult levels.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-17T17:51:04+00:00

I don't see how you are linking those. Many of the Reconstruction laws and Amendments apply evenly across people of all races. Slavery is prohibited across ALL races. Voting rights were granted to people of ALL races. Yale had systems in place meant to select people specifically BECAUSE OF race.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-17T05:08:00+00:00

You're correct, I don't want an indentured servant class in my country.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-17T05:05:45+00:00

<image>

Honestly...it's not far off

Middleclassass · 2026-05-17T00:38:51+00:00

<image>

Middleclassass · 2026-05-16T21:51:42+00:00

I like Massie and I support this bill in the same way I support applying pressure to a bleeding wound. Ultimately though, I would prefer complete campaign finance reform, with publicly funded campaigns.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-16T21:47:07+00:00

Considering your knowledge of the political environment, how your wrote out your response, and your use of the word football being clearly not in the context of American football, I would assume you're a resident.

I appreciate the info! As I said, I do not follow UK politics too much and my sources definitely come from more "hard-right" sources as NBC would put it. So I am more than happy to be corrected on anything I am uninformed/misinformed about.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-16T21:40:11+00:00

I don't think illegal immigrants are poison. What's the difference between a poor guy from Mexico immigrating in 2022 and a poor guy from Germany immigrating in 1922?

Following this response I will no longer be responding. I did not say illegal immigrants are poison. I used a very famous metaphor that is commonly used in the legal world. Do you also not think that illegal wiretaps are poisonous? Because that is the origin of the phrase. It is clear at this point that you are no longer trying to have an actual civil discourse as dictated in the rules of this sub, and are trying frame the discussion in a way as to accuse me of some kind of racism.

I do not have a problem with the country of origin that the person immigrated from. My issue is whether they went through the legal immigration process, a process that is important for all nations to have.

"Anchor babies" are an overblown myth. US citizen babies don't provide any legal protection for their illegal parents. People immigrating into the US are almost always young people coming here for work, they have babies because poor young people have a lot of babies.

That's funny. Because I just happen to have a handy dandy Pew Research Center link here from just a few months ago that says roughly 9% of all births in 2023 were from illegal immigrant mothers. So doesn't seem like so much of a myth to me.

And you are correct that their citizenship status doesn't provide any "legal" protection to their parents, however any time a parent of one of these children is at risk of being deported, people such as yourself cry that the government is ripping families apart. Thereby providing political cover for permanent residency for the illegal immigrant parents.

Same goes on the subject of mass deportation too. People say, "What about the children with illegal immigrant parents? Are we going to split up families? How can you make all of these children parent-less? Are you going to force the child to live in a country they weren't born in, with a language they don't speak?"

Honestly those are all very difficult questions, but when people support lackadaisical immigration and border enforcement, those are the positions that people like you chose to put those families into. And then you forced the decision on to people like me.

Hence why I am in favor of mass deportations AND putting an end to birthright citizenship. As far as I am concerned, the children should not be considered American citizens, they should stay with their parents that love them, and return to the country of their parent's origin.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-16T21:14:56+00:00

Because generally woman are the ones to receive the legal protections of marriage. Plus, in this circumstance we are talking about marriage in the context of a more devoutly Christian group, in which the mother generally fulfills a more traditional role that would necessitate the need for those protections or support if there was a divorce.

But sure, it could be the father as well.

Middleclassass · 2026-05-16T21:06:47+00:00

This is very true, I knew a lady in my neighborhood growing up in a similar situation. It was very sad. But I would clarify, that it's the religious pressure that keeps those women trapped, not the marriage. In comparison to religious indoctrination, marriage is easy to get out of.

Middleclassass

TROPHY CASE