That’s what jobs are like; one gets paid to do work. Reality.
Obviously, at the time they thought working there was a better option than the alternative.
They were not indentured, so they could have quit at any time.
So, meh.
moarscienceplzsays
John Morales,
Fuck your privilege, and fuck YOU!
John Moralessays
To what privilege do you intend to refer, moarscienceplz?
(I notice you didn’t dispute anything I wrote)
file thirteensays
@moarscience, You may have missed sonof’s recent comment:
Why anyone would not do this for Morales is beyond me. The guy is an absolute dickhead. But if you’re not in a position to use a browser extension, I recommend skipping over his comments without even looking at them. He never writes anything worth reading.
John Moralessays
[meta]
The guy is an absolute dickhead.
Ah, penis envy. I get it, F13.
I give you absolution since I have phallic absoluteness whereas you only have obtuseness.
(Actually, it sort of works. I’m not circumcised, and neither am I bald)
But if you’re not in a position to use a browser extension, I recommend skipping over his comments without even looking at them.
See how well that works.
He never writes anything worth reading.
How would you know, unless you read what I’ve written? 😉
—
Still. I regularly and often get comments about me or to me.
I am very interesting, no?
To you, the topic of the post is meh. But I’m worthy of comment. Me, me, me.
Hard not to notice the attention I garner, when I get comments purely about me.
Ah well.
Holmssays
The stupidity of comment 1 is truly staggering. “Just quit” -- in USA, with its inadequate social safety net, exorbitant health costs, and rampant exploitation of those desperate for work.
John Moralessays
The stupidity of comment 1 is truly staggering. “Just quit” — in USA, with its inadequate social safety net, exorbitant health costs, and rampant exploitation of those desperate for work.
Your own stupidity is stupendous.
Obviously, ““Just quit” — in USA, with its inadequate social safety net, exorbitant health costs, and rampant exploitation of those desperate for work.” and, therefore, “at the time they thought working there was a better option than the alternative.”.
(You do get that now working there was the alternative to working there, no?)
Your claim that my comment is stupid is therefore more than vitiated by your stupidity in rephrasing what I wrote as your attempted basis for it.
Heh.
—
Actually, I myself have done menial labouring work. It was better than the alternative.
—
Amusingly, there’s a parable that makes the point: Matthew 20: 1–16.
Silentbobsays
# 5
Hard not to notice the attention I garner, when I get comments purely about me.
Hands up who thinks if you invited Morales to a dinner party he would defecate on the table for the validation of all the ensuing comments showing how interesting he is. X-D
John Moralessays
And yet another comment about me, rather than the topic.
As with every other one, not disputing anything I wrote.
Evidently, that they cannot dispute my claims (other than by stupidly rephrasing them, as Holms tried to do) irritates them a lot.
(Tell me more about my snowflake fragility, O unsilentBob)
—
Anyway, yeah. I give them the credit of believing that they represent rational actors who thought it was better to do that than to not do that, which some people foolishly imagine means I’m privileged somehow.
Ah well.
Far as I can tell, the only comments that are on topic are mine.
Silentbobsays
Another word for pissing people off for attention is “trolling” btw.
John Moralessays
Well, Silentbub, that’s exactly what you are doing.
You pop into threads to snipe at me and when I respond you claim I piss people off for attention.
I respond, which means you imagine I’m somehow
Fact of the matter — evident and verifiable — is that I made one (1) comment, entirely on topic.
Every subsequent comment is to me or about me, and so responses by me to other people commenting to and about me are not about attention seeking. Obviously! The attention is what provokes my response, so you have cause and effect backwards. My responses are to people who are already pissed off.
It would not matter one whit what I wrote, you’d still come in and snipe.
And I’ll respond.
(Also, you forgot your sig there — X-D)
John Moralessays
So, really, Amazon should be praised for providing these people with work that they considered better than the alternative — of all the employers they could find, Amazon was the best option. Better than the rest.
Silentbobsays
@ 4 file thirteen
I would agree but there’s this rubberneck effect where you can’t look away from the train wreck. X-D
Like this guy literally said he agrees he’s a dickhead because his hair is a foreskin. It’s like how much more ludicrous can he get?! His meltdown is darkly fascinating to watch.
John Moralessays
Like this guy literally said he agrees he’s a dickhead because his hair is a foreskin. It’s like how much more ludicrous can he get?!
Mr Hyperliteral, that’s me according to you.
And spectral, to boot. An oft-repeated claim by you.
So, of course that was literal! Everyone knows foreskins are hirsute.
Heh.
His meltdown is darkly fascinating to watch.
Heh. Meltdown, because I’m a fragile snowflake.
One who supposedly pisses people off for attention whilst in the middle of a meltdown, in your estimation.
(Heh. Well, consistency is the hobgoblin and all that)
—
So, on topic, if it weren’t for Amazon those people would not have had that work and would have had to take the worse option. And rational people pick the least worst option.
Basically, the comic shows Amazon as praiseworthy in a relative way.
Holmssays
As usual for a corporate-run nation, the scandal is not that Amazon (or others) are exploitative, the scandal is that the exploitation is legal. Offshoring the profits with shell companies supposedly headquartered in a small office with one employee in Ireland or wherever is another example. But so long as ‘free speech’ includes legally purchasing votes in government, this is what we are stuck with.
Anyway. It takes a great deal of Scrooge-like cynicism and insulation to respond to Amazon’s exploitation with “they could have quit at any time. So, meh.”
It further takes a great deal of intentional bad faith to argue that said exploitation is praiseworthy in any way. And what further demonstration of bad faith can there be than an actual adult arguing that being called “dickhead” implies penis envy! Couple this with a pathological inability to refrain from responding -- lamely explained as an ‘honour culture’ thing! -- and you have an unending stream of dumb for me to fisk.
Morales will now reply, because he cannot bear the itch of leaving anything unresponded to.
John Moralessays
And what further demonstration of bad faith can there be than an actual adult arguing that being called “dickhead” implies penis envy!
Nah, it’s me melting down and being a fragile snowflake.
I took the claim as seriously as it merited.
Morales will now reply, because he cannot bear the itch of leaving anything unresponded to.
Every accusation is a confession, Holms. 🙂
another stewartsays
“If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin” -- Charles Darwin
John assumes there are other alternatives because he missed the memo about Amazon driving other retail outlets out of business by undercutting prices, which they do until the competition is gone.
Or he got the memo and didn’t read it because it wasn’t about him.
Holmssays
Morales will now reply, because he cannot bear the itch of leaving anything unresponded to.
Every accusation is a confession, Holms.
Really? Rich, coming from the only person on this board to promise to get the last word in any conversation and then gloat about it, who also declared that he would not return to a conversation only to immediately return to it, and who has since said it is totally not a compulsion, but rather a matter of honour!
Obviously, if you had any, you would not constantly argue in bad faith.
Also, I note that comment #16 had no mention of the topic at hand but was solely a reply to me. Comments 3, 5, and 11 likewise, though to other people. Don’t you normally bleat about that? Looks like you forgot the fig-leaf mentions of the topic for those.
Anyway, you will now respond. I command it! And you will meekly comply, though perhaps with a lame ‘yeah well I was going to reply anyway’. You can disprove my claim only by not replying. I will show you how it’s done, by leaving it at that.
steve oberskisays
file thirteen @ 4
I like the Stylus addon privacy policy:
Privacy Policy
Unlike other similar extensions, we don’t find you to be all that interesting. Your questionable browsing history should remain between you and the NSA. Stylus collects nothing. Period.
captainjacksays
I would like for Mr. Morales to use the same death head picture he uses on PZ’s blog for comments. It makes it easier to know which ones to not read. He’s truly a legend in his own mind.
file thirteensays
@silentbob #13
Yeah, Morales only knows how to deal with words in the most literal sense. And never bothers checking dictionary meanings. And finishes his replies with “heh”. Got to laugh at his own “jokes”, nobody else will.
dickhead
noun VULGAR SLANG
a stupid, irritating, or ridiculous man.
Oh look, the shoe fits!!
John Moralessays
Holms:
Anyway, you will now respond. I command it!
What you command is irrelevant; the only constraint is that I will stop responding to you at some point, since I have proven you yourself cannot and I don’t want another thread closed because of your obsession with me. But you’ve got a few left in your quota for this thread.
Be aware your primitive and transparent “reverse psychology” is futile when it comes to me.
—
Goodness, John, take a seat, touch grass, but for the love of dog, just stop.
You’d do better to appeal to others to stop addressing me instead of the topic at hand.
I mean, I can hardly reply to comments to or about me that don’t exist.
—
captainjack:
I would like for Mr. Morales to use the same death head picture he uses on PZ’s blog for comments.
I use exactly the very same WP account for every single blog on this network; this blog does not display it, but that’s not up to me. Of course, that doesn’t worry me one bit, tough as it may be for you.
—
F13:
He’s truly a legend in his own mind.
That’s an old conceit; the usual suspects’ (particularly the bubulum) current claim is I am a fragile snowflake and that I lack self-esteem and that I’m melting down.
(It changes from month to month)
What’s pretty obvious is that I am indeed a legend, but in the mind of other commenters.
The tall poppy.
—
Yeah, Morales only knows how to deal with words in the most literal sense.
<snicker>
Actually, I know how to irritate poseurs who are trying to insult me.
And finishes his replies with “heh”. Got to laugh at his own “jokes”, nobody else will.
Heh. Well, you certainly don’t get the bulk of them.
—
John assumes there are other alternatives because he missed the memo about Amazon driving other retail outlets out of business by undercutting prices, which they do until the competition is gone.
You are mistaken; I know there are other alternatives: stop working for Amazon is an alternative.
No memo to miss.
You are missing my main point, clearly expressed as it is: for people working at Amazon (what, around 1½ million of them) it is better to work there than the alternative — the alternative being to not work there.
—
Notice how, given a few hours’ break, I can make only one comment to respond to multiple comments to or about me. One to many!
(This does not hurt my self-esteem; on the contrary, it reinforces how special I am)
Tethyssays
Amazon likes to build its distribution centers in areas that are economically depressed so that its blue collar labor pool don’t have many other options for jobs. It’s much easier to mistreat them if they are desperate for an income, due to megacorporations like Amazon driving all the smaller local businesses out of the marketplace.
They recently settled a suit over worker mistreatment.
Amazon to pay $1.9 million to migrant contract workers to settle claims of human rights abuses. Amazon will pay $1.9 million to more than 700 contract migrant workers to address claims they were exposed to exploitative labor conditions.Feb 23, 2024
One of the surprising (maybe not so) is that Amazons meanness culture apparently extends to its highly paid software jobs too( all in the guise of continuous measurement and optimization)
@John Morales
One comment only -- your response @1 is similar to what Ron Paul said in response to why he doesn’t support sexual harrasment laws(vaguely remember it on one of his presidential campaigns)- the woman(always ) has the choice to quit and work elsewhere if she doesn’t like the boss’ sexual advances.
When your views match a nutty American libertarian it’s time to reconsider your views ,perhaps ?
John Moralessays
When your views match a nutty American libertarian it’s time to reconsider your views ,perhaps ?
No.
If Ron Paul said severe injuries should be treated at a hospital, should I reconsider that view, which I happen to share? That’s not how it works, Deepak.
More to point, my view is not a moral stance or an ideological stance, it’s a perception of how things work.
It’s acceptance of reality. How it is, not how it should be.
Tethyssays
It’s acceptance of reality. How it is, not how it should be.
No, you claimed that if Amazon workers don’t want to be abused by Amazon they can just go work elsewhere.
A brief bit of research might be in order.
Apparently humans don’t need an income to have food or shelter in the magical land of Oz? Their children surely can simply not eat and they can live in the park?
John Moralessays
No, you claimed that if Amazon workers don’t want to be abused by Amazon they can just go work elsewhere.
This is the claim:
“Obviously, at the time they thought working there was a better option than the alternative.
They were not indentured, so they could have quit at any time.”
See the difference?
I did not write “they can just go work elsewhere”, I wrote “they could have quit at any time”.
Apparently humans don’t need an income to have food or shelter in the magical land of Oz?
How that’s apparent to you is left to the imagination.
Particularly since “they can just go work elsewhere” (what you imagined I wrote) would mean they can still have income for food and shelter, and so you are inadvertently admitting that the alternative to working there was lacking income. It’s still an alternative, but not one a rational person would choose if they want to live.
We do indeed need an income, in Oz.
Again: “Obviously, at the time they thought working there was a better option than the alternative.”
Again: “I myself have done menial labouring work. It was better than the alternative.”
Right? Food and shelter are better than no food or shelter. How that is controversial escapes me.
Working at Amazon is therefore the better option that a lack of food and shelter.
Their children surely can simply not eat and they can live in the park?
I did not write “they can just go work elsewhere”, I wrote “they could have quit at any time”.
Those two are pretty much the same thing; and either way, you don’t necessarily know whether that’s true. If there’s no “elsewhere” choosing to hire someone, and that someone has bills to pay, then they can neither “go work elsewhere” nor “quit at any time.”
But hey, keep up your naturally-well-honed argumentation, John — you look on track to win gold in the Summer Olympic Hairsplitting event!
John Moralessays
I did not write “they can just go work elsewhere”, I wrote “they could have quit at any time”.
Those two are pretty much the same thing
Only to a dolt.
See, one can quit and yet not have work elsewhere.
That was the whole point. Quitting was a possibility, the job was shitty and they whinged about it after the fact, but at the time they thought it was better than the alternative.
Again: “(You do get that no[t] working there was the alternative to working there, no?)”
That’s all I said. That, unless they were indentured, and unless they were irrational, they chose to work there because not working there would have been a worse alternative.
Not a complicated concept, one would think, but the reality is that people on this thread can’t seem to process that.
… and either way, you don’t necessarily know whether that’s true.
Only someone who is ignorant about basic logic would imagine that.
Either one is working for Amazon, or one is not. There is no superposition.
So, yes, the only possible alternative to working for Amazon is to not work for Amazon.
(duh)
But hey, keep up your
, John
Your exhortation is duly noted.
Be aware that, if you henceforth whinge about my
, you can expect to be reminded it was you who encouraged me to continue so doing.
you look on track to win gold in the Summer Olympic Hairsplitting event!
Mate!
Before you can sprint, you must be able to run.
Before you can run, you must be able to walk.
Before you can walk, you must be able to crawl.
You’re not even at the crawl stage, when you imagine that there are more alternatives to working for Amazon than not working for Amazon.
So far, there is no competition.
(I win gold, silver, and bronze)
John Moralessays
[good grief! one stupid editing error]
—
But hey, keep up your naturally-well-honed argumentation, John
Your exhortation is duly noted.
Be aware that, if you henceforth whinge about my naturally-well-honed argumentation, you can expect to be reminded it was you who encouraged me to continue so doing.
you look on track to win gold in the Summer Olympic Hairsplitting event!
Mate!
Before you can sprint, you must be able to run.
Before you can run, you must be able to walk.
Before you can walk, you must be able to crawl.
You’re not even at the crawl stage, when you imagine that there are more alternatives to working for Amazon than not working for Amazon.
So far, there is no competition.
(I win gold, silver, and bronze)
John Moralessays
[heh. Must be part of my meltdown due to my snowflake fragility]
[Yep, must be. Or maybe it’s your robotic libertarian thought-patterns.]
John Moralessays
Ah, so you too think I’m melting down, Arbee.
Though you think it’s possible that it’s my robotic libertarian thought-patterns.
So. Have you ever done basic wage menial work, Bee that rages?
I have.
—
But hey, tell me more about my supposedly robotic libertarian thought-patterns.
I find it hard to fathom how you perceive me as robotic — presumably, because I don’t yield to the pressure of people who can’t cope with my comments.
Now, if you’re imagining I have an ideology and that it’s libertarianism to, on the basis of my lived experience regarding what makes people work at jobs they dislike and therefore my understanding of the motivations at hand, relate to others that it’s a shitty choice, but one people must make, well… you are a simpleton extrapolating from a single datum to a hasty (and very, very incorrect) generalisation.
Honestly. You don’t get how I think, and every time you attempt to confront me, ti’s most evident.
—
But hey, do tell. Am I truly, in your estimation, a fragile snowflake who has melted down or is in the process of melting down, or am I a robotic libertarian?
Heh.
You know, the UnsilentBlob used to claim I only ever posted to have fun; but as is evident in this very comment thread, I’ve only made one or two comments about the topic. The rest were responses to people.
This very comment is a response to you.
I hope it has clarified matters.
—
Look: fact is, they worked for Amazon. That is a predicate, it’s a given, based on the cartoon.
So. They worked 80-hour weeks for three years without vacations and with little sleep but they were lucky because their coworkers (not cow-orkers!) who had children or suffered from ill-health (apparently, only child-free people work at Amazon) purely to expedite delivery of duct-tape.
Right?
(Captain HypoLiteral, that’s me!)
—
Thank goodness Amazon was there for them, during that time when it was their best available option!
Other work was neither available, or not as profitable — I mean, had it been, surely they would have taken it. And so they worked for the best available employer they could find.
Have you ever done basic wage menial work, Bee that rages?
What makes you think I haven’t?
Tethyssays
One should appreciate that rural Americans (who due to mega-corporations establishing a monopoly on all Agricultural can no longer earn a meager living via family farming) can go be subject to human rights abuses in Amazon warehouses.
It’s simply a modern billionaire run sweatshop, but the truly important issue is the eternal rightness of John in his eternal quest for an argument.
John Moralessays
RB:
Have you ever done basic wage menial work, Bee that rages?
What makes you think I haven’t?
How coy!
(What makes you think I think you haven’t?)
—
Tethys:
It’s simply a modern billionaire run sweatshop, but the truly important issue is the eternal rightness of John in his eternal quest for an argument.
To what quest do you intend to refer?
I made one comment, then people started aggroing on me.
I don’t need to seek arguments here, as you can tell from this thread.
(You’re arguing right now — unsolicited from me, of course)
John Moralessays
Good news for Amazon warehouse workers, though — they’re trying to automate more and thus fewer people will be working there.
In a briefing at a media event at an Amazon facility on the outskirts of Seattle, Brady told reporters that he wants to “eliminate all the menial, the mundane and the repetitive” tasks inside Amazon’s business. He denied this would lead to job cuts, however, claiming that it “does not” mean Amazon will require fewer staff.
Oh, I see. Automation will occur, but the workforce shan’t be reduced thereby.
According to a PR person, anyway.
That’s what jobs are like; one gets paid to do work. Reality.
Obviously, at the time they thought working there was a better option than the alternative.
They were not indentured, so they could have quit at any time.
So, meh.
John Morales,
Fuck your privilege, and fuck YOU!
To what privilege do you intend to refer, moarscienceplz?
(I notice you didn’t dispute anything I wrote)
@moarscience, You may have missed sonof’s recent comment:
Why anyone would not do this for Morales is beyond me. The guy is an absolute dickhead. But if you’re not in a position to use a browser extension, I recommend skipping over his comments without even looking at them. He never writes anything worth reading.
[meta]
Ah, penis envy. I get it, F13.
I give you absolution since I have phallic absoluteness whereas you only have obtuseness.
(Actually, it sort of works. I’m not circumcised, and neither am I bald)
See how well that works.
How would you know, unless you read what I’ve written? 😉
—
Still. I regularly and often get comments about me or to me.
I am very interesting, no?
To you, the topic of the post is meh. But I’m worthy of comment. Me, me, me.
Hard not to notice the attention I garner, when I get comments purely about me.
Ah well.
The stupidity of comment 1 is truly staggering. “Just quit” -- in USA, with its inadequate social safety net, exorbitant health costs, and rampant exploitation of those desperate for work.
Your own stupidity is stupendous.
Obviously, ““Just quit” — in USA, with its inadequate social safety net, exorbitant health costs, and rampant exploitation of those desperate for work.” and, therefore, “at the time they thought working there was a better option than the alternative.”.
(You do get that now working there was the alternative to working there, no?)
Your claim that my comment is stupid is therefore more than vitiated by your stupidity in rephrasing what I wrote as your attempted basis for it.
Heh.
—
Actually, I myself have done menial labouring work. It was better than the alternative.
—
Amusingly, there’s a parable that makes the point: Matthew 20: 1–16.
# 5
Hands up who thinks if you invited Morales to a dinner party he would defecate on the table for the validation of all the ensuing comments showing how interesting he is. X-D
And yet another comment about me, rather than the topic.
As with every other one, not disputing anything I wrote.
Evidently, that they cannot dispute my claims (other than by stupidly rephrasing them, as Holms tried to do) irritates them a lot.
(Tell me more about my snowflake fragility, O unsilentBob)
—
Anyway, yeah. I give them the credit of believing that they represent rational actors who thought it was better to do that than to not do that, which some people foolishly imagine means I’m privileged somehow.
Ah well.
Far as I can tell, the only comments that are on topic are mine.
Another word for pissing people off for attention is “trolling” btw.
Well, Silentbub, that’s exactly what you are doing.
You pop into threads to snipe at me and when I respond you claim I piss people off for attention.
I respond, which means you imagine I’m somehow
Fact of the matter — evident and verifiable — is that I made one (1) comment, entirely on topic.
Every subsequent comment is to me or about me, and so responses by me to other people commenting to and about me are not about attention seeking. Obviously! The attention is what provokes my response, so you have cause and effect backwards. My responses are to people who are already pissed off.
It would not matter one whit what I wrote, you’d still come in and snipe.
And I’ll respond.
(Also, you forgot your sig there — X-D)
So, really, Amazon should be praised for providing these people with work that they considered better than the alternative — of all the employers they could find, Amazon was the best option. Better than the rest.
@ 4 file thirteen
I would agree but there’s this rubberneck effect where you can’t look away from the train wreck. X-D
Like this guy literally said he agrees he’s a dickhead because his hair is a foreskin. It’s like how much more ludicrous can he get?! His meltdown is darkly fascinating to watch.
Mr Hyperliteral, that’s me according to you.
And spectral, to boot. An oft-repeated claim by you.
So, of course that was literal! Everyone knows foreskins are hirsute.
Heh.
Heh. Meltdown, because I’m a fragile snowflake.
One who supposedly pisses people off for attention whilst in the middle of a meltdown, in your estimation.
(Heh. Well, consistency is the hobgoblin and all that)
—
So, on topic, if it weren’t for Amazon those people would not have had that work and would have had to take the worse option. And rational people pick the least worst option.
Basically, the comic shows Amazon as praiseworthy in a relative way.
As usual for a corporate-run nation, the scandal is not that Amazon (or others) are exploitative, the scandal is that the exploitation is legal. Offshoring the profits with shell companies supposedly headquartered in a small office with one employee in Ireland or wherever is another example. But so long as ‘free speech’ includes legally purchasing votes in government, this is what we are stuck with.
Anyway. It takes a great deal of Scrooge-like cynicism and insulation to respond to Amazon’s exploitation with “they could have quit at any time. So, meh.”
It further takes a great deal of intentional bad faith to argue that said exploitation is praiseworthy in any way. And what further demonstration of bad faith can there be than an actual adult arguing that being called “dickhead” implies penis envy! Couple this with a pathological inability to refrain from responding -- lamely explained as an ‘honour culture’ thing! -- and you have an unending stream of dumb for me to fisk.
Morales will now reply, because he cannot bear the itch of leaving anything unresponded to.
Nah, it’s me melting down and being a fragile snowflake.
I took the claim as seriously as it merited.
Every accusation is a confession, Holms. 🙂
“If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin” -- Charles Darwin
Goodness, John, take a seat, touch grass, but for the love of dog, just stop.
+++
I absolutely get shopping on the internet. Try being a fat woman with multiple non common hobbies, but nobody needs their stuff “right now”.
John assumes there are other alternatives because he missed the memo about Amazon driving other retail outlets out of business by undercutting prices, which they do until the competition is gone.
Or he got the memo and didn’t read it because it wasn’t about him.
Really? Rich, coming from the only person on this board to promise to get the last word in any conversation and then gloat about it, who also declared that he would not return to a conversation only to immediately return to it, and who has since said it is totally not a compulsion, but rather a matter of honour!
Obviously, if you had any, you would not constantly argue in bad faith.
Also, I note that comment #16 had no mention of the topic at hand but was solely a reply to me. Comments 3, 5, and 11 likewise, though to other people. Don’t you normally bleat about that? Looks like you forgot the fig-leaf mentions of the topic for those.
Anyway, you will now respond. I command it! And you will meekly comply, though perhaps with a lame ‘yeah well I was going to reply anyway’. You can disprove my claim only by not replying. I will show you how it’s done, by leaving it at that.
file thirteen @ 4
I like the Stylus addon privacy policy:
Privacy Policy
Unlike other similar extensions, we don’t find you to be all that interesting. Your questionable browsing history should remain between you and the NSA. Stylus collects nothing. Period.
I would like for Mr. Morales to use the same death head picture he uses on PZ’s blog for comments. It makes it easier to know which ones to not read. He’s truly a legend in his own mind.
@silentbob #13
Yeah, Morales only knows how to deal with words in the most literal sense. And never bothers checking dictionary meanings. And finishes his replies with “heh”. Got to laugh at his own “jokes”, nobody else will.
dickhead
noun VULGAR SLANG
a stupid, irritating, or ridiculous man.
Oh look, the shoe fits!!
Holms:
What you command is irrelevant; the only constraint is that I will stop responding to you at some point, since I have proven you yourself cannot and I don’t want another thread closed because of your obsession with me. But you’ve got a few left in your quota for this thread.
Be aware your primitive and transparent “reverse psychology” is futile when it comes to me.
—
You’d do better to appeal to others to stop addressing me instead of the topic at hand.
I mean, I can hardly reply to comments to or about me that don’t exist.
—
captainjack:
I use exactly the very same WP account for every single blog on this network; this blog does not display it, but that’s not up to me. Of course, that doesn’t worry me one bit, tough as it may be for you.
—
F13:
That’s an old conceit; the usual suspects’ (particularly the bubulum) current claim is I am a fragile snowflake and that I lack self-esteem and that I’m melting down.
(It changes from month to month)
What’s pretty obvious is that I am indeed a legend, but in the mind of other commenters.
The tall poppy.
—
<snicker>
Actually, I know how to irritate poseurs who are trying to insult me.
Heh. Well, you certainly don’t get the bulk of them.
—
You are mistaken; I know there are other alternatives: stop working for Amazon is an alternative.
No memo to miss.
You are missing my main point, clearly expressed as it is: for people working at Amazon (what, around 1½ million of them) it is better to work there than the alternative — the alternative being to not work there.
—
Notice how, given a few hours’ break, I can make only one comment to respond to multiple comments to or about me. One to many!
(This does not hurt my self-esteem; on the contrary, it reinforces how special I am)
Amazon likes to build its distribution centers in areas that are economically depressed so that its blue collar labor pool don’t have many other options for jobs. It’s much easier to mistreat them if they are desperate for an income, due to megacorporations like Amazon driving all the smaller local businesses out of the marketplace.
https://smlr.rutgers.edu/news-events/smlr-news/study-amazon-uses-power-police-subdue-workers-and-enforce-obedience
They recently settled a suit over worker mistreatment.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/23/amazon-to-pay-1point9-million-in-contract-worker-exploitation-settlement
One of the surprising (maybe not so) is that Amazons meanness culture apparently extends to its highly paid software jobs too( all in the guise of continuous measurement and optimization)
@John Morales
One comment only -- your response @1 is similar to what Ron Paul said in response to why he doesn’t support sexual harrasment laws(vaguely remember it on one of his presidential campaigns)- the woman(always ) has the choice to quit and work elsewhere if she doesn’t like the boss’ sexual advances.
When your views match a nutty American libertarian it’s time to reconsider your views ,perhaps ?
No.
If Ron Paul said severe injuries should be treated at a hospital, should I reconsider that view, which I happen to share? That’s not how it works, Deepak.
More to point, my view is not a moral stance or an ideological stance, it’s a perception of how things work.
It’s acceptance of reality. How it is, not how it should be.
It’s acceptance of reality. How it is, not how it should be.
No, you claimed that if Amazon workers don’t want to be abused by Amazon they can just go work elsewhere.
A brief bit of research might be in order.
Apparently humans don’t need an income to have food or shelter in the magical land of Oz? Their children surely can simply not eat and they can live in the park?
This is the claim:
“Obviously, at the time they thought working there was a better option than the alternative.
They were not indentured, so they could have quit at any time.”
See the difference?
I did not write “they can just go work elsewhere”, I wrote “they could have quit at any time”.
How that’s apparent to you is left to the imagination.
Particularly since “they can just go work elsewhere” (what you imagined I wrote) would mean they can still have income for food and shelter, and so you are inadvertently admitting that the alternative to working there was lacking income. It’s still an alternative, but not one a rational person would choose if they want to live.
We do indeed need an income, in Oz.
Again: “Obviously, at the time they thought working there was a better option than the alternative.”
Again: “I myself have done menial labouring work. It was better than the alternative.”
Right? Food and shelter are better than no food or shelter. How that is controversial escapes me.
Working at Amazon is therefore the better option that a lack of food and shelter.
<snicker>
“Won’t somebody think of the children?!”
I did not write “they can just go work elsewhere”, I wrote “they could have quit at any time”.
Those two are pretty much the same thing; and either way, you don’t necessarily know whether that’s true. If there’s no “elsewhere” choosing to hire someone, and that someone has bills to pay, then they can neither “go work elsewhere” nor “quit at any time.”
But hey, keep up your naturally-well-honed argumentation, John — you look on track to win gold in the Summer Olympic Hairsplitting event!
Only to a dolt.
See, one can quit and yet not have work elsewhere.
That was the whole point. Quitting was a possibility, the job was shitty and they whinged about it after the fact, but at the time they thought it was better than the alternative.
Again: “(You do get that no[t] working there was the alternative to working there, no?)”
That’s all I said. That, unless they were indentured, and unless they were irrational, they chose to work there because not working there would have been a worse alternative.
Not a complicated concept, one would think, but the reality is that people on this thread can’t seem to process that.
Only someone who is ignorant about basic logic would imagine that.
Either one is working for Amazon, or one is not. There is no superposition.
So, yes, the only possible alternative to working for Amazon is to not work for Amazon.
(duh)
[good grief! one stupid editing error]
—
Your exhortation is duly noted.
Be aware that, if you henceforth whinge about my naturally-well-honed argumentation, you can expect to be reminded it was you who encouraged me to continue so doing.
Mate!
Before you can sprint, you must be able to run.
Before you can run, you must be able to walk.
Before you can walk, you must be able to crawl.
You’re not even at the crawl stage, when you imagine that there are more alternatives to working for Amazon than not working for Amazon.
So far, there is no competition.
(I win gold, silver, and bronze)
[heh. Must be part of my meltdown due to my snowflake fragility]
[Yep, must be. Or maybe it’s your robotic libertarian thought-patterns.]
Ah, so you too think I’m melting down, Arbee.
Though you think it’s possible that it’s my robotic libertarian thought-patterns.
So. Have you ever done basic wage menial work, Bee that rages?
I have.
—
But hey, tell me more about my supposedly robotic libertarian thought-patterns.
I find it hard to fathom how you perceive me as robotic — presumably, because I don’t yield to the pressure of people who can’t cope with my comments.
Now, if you’re imagining I have an ideology and that it’s libertarianism to, on the basis of my lived experience regarding what makes people work at jobs they dislike and therefore my understanding of the motivations at hand, relate to others that it’s a shitty choice, but one people must make, well… you are a simpleton extrapolating from a single datum to a hasty (and very, very incorrect) generalisation.
Honestly. You don’t get how I think, and every time you attempt to confront me, ti’s most evident.
—
But hey, do tell. Am I truly, in your estimation, a fragile snowflake who has melted down or is in the process of melting down, or am I a robotic libertarian?
Heh.
You know, the UnsilentBlob used to claim I only ever posted to have fun; but as is evident in this very comment thread, I’ve only made one or two comments about the topic. The rest were responses to people.
This very comment is a response to you.
I hope it has clarified matters.
—
Look: fact is, they worked for Amazon. That is a predicate, it’s a given, based on the cartoon.
So. They worked 80-hour weeks for three years without vacations and with little sleep but they were lucky because their coworkers (not cow-orkers!) who had children or suffered from ill-health (apparently, only child-free people work at Amazon) purely to expedite delivery of duct-tape.
Right?
(Captain HypoLiteral, that’s me!)
—
Thank goodness Amazon was there for them, during that time when it was their best available option!
Other work was neither available, or not as profitable — I mean, had it been, surely they would have taken it. And so they worked for the best available employer they could find.
(One should appreciate such generosity)
Have you ever done basic wage menial work, Bee that rages?
What makes you think I haven’t?
One should appreciate that rural Americans (who due to mega-corporations establishing a monopoly on all Agricultural can no longer earn a meager living via family farming) can go be subject to human rights abuses in Amazon warehouses.
It’s simply a modern billionaire run sweatshop, but the truly important issue is the eternal rightness of John in his eternal quest for an argument.
RB:
How coy!
(What makes you think I think you haven’t?)
—
Tethys:
To what quest do you intend to refer?
I made one comment, then people started aggroing on me.
I don’t need to seek arguments here, as you can tell from this thread.
(You’re arguing right now — unsolicited from me, of course)
Good news for Amazon warehouse workers, though — they’re trying to automate more and thus fewer people will be working there.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/oct/18/amazon-robot-warehouses-digit-workers
Oh, I see. Automation will occur, but the workforce shan’t be reduced thereby.
According to a PR person, anyway.