5
djsumdog
157d

Someone in the #us slack channel posted about how, if other Americas were dealing with roe v wade, they could come to the mental health channel.

I really want to respond about how Americans are a diverse group, and some are thankful for a judgement that preserves what some consider life, and to keep our diverse opinions in mind.

But I'm not going to. I'm not stupid. It's not worth starting a fight or potentially losing a job over. So I remain silent, like a coward.

I earn a lot of money, enough to ignore ideology I don't agree with, and messages that would have been considered totally inappropriate at one time.

Comments
  • 6
    The online world doesn't want free speech. They want "you can speak if you agree with the narrative" speech.
  • 2
    I would have so much fun with this.

    You just have to sit in there and wait for some retard to drop a G or J bomb and report it to HR. Inform them that you feel that religious discussions have no place in or on company time and that it creates an uncomfortable and hostile work environment for you.

    At that point you have it on record, they have to respond.

    Response A) they shut that shit down to stifle a lawsuit

    Response B) they fire you for some reason, at which point you sue for wrongful termination and equal employment violations

    B is great because you could make millions off some retarded Jesus freak.

    Religion is a grift and those fuckers use it to their full advantage, so why not turn the tables.
  • 7
    I'm a disabled person who works for a company with a "diversity, ethnicity and inclusion" crowd. The head of the crowd is a white trans man who believes that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be sexist towards men and IMPOSIBBLE to be racist to a white person because he is white and is now a man. It also has a majority percentage of women in the group. The company is the same but they keep pushing to hire more women.

    This is a crowd who has a week dedicated to events designed for women (especially leadership events) but never even acknowledges that there is a day for disabled people.

    It just feels like they cater towards what people in the group feel is an important issue rather than full diversity, ethnicity and inclusion.
  • 6
    it's not like people want abortions to be mandatory. when it's legal you're giving everyone a choice, when you ban it you're saying only your viewpoint is valid
  • 0
    @cmarshall10450 that's a problem with semantics actually. racism and sexism are structural problems, so men don't suffer sexism because society as a whole is sexist, not because of individual actions. people can have personal biases against men or white people (usually due to their personal experiences with discrimination), but those are not structural issues
  • 1
    @lambda123 do i unpack this? sigh

    let me give you an example. women make 0.70 to a dollar a man makes. that's less if she's black, and even less if she's disabled. women don't often make to leadership positions. black people have a harder time getting hired, as do disabled people. life is literally harder if you're a minority. you can't make the money you need to feed and house yourself. a lot of homeless people are lgbt. half of trans people commit suicide. white men have issues, but they'd have more if they weren't white and male
  • 1
    @darksideofyay I'm part of the majority who is blind. 4/5 blind people are unemployed so I'm very lucky to be employed. My dad was made redundant in his mid 50s and he pretty much knew that he wouldn't get another job before retirement.

    I know that people face a lot of issues in their careers but having different issues to someone else doesnt make those issues invalid. The positive discrimination of hiring more women and more ethnicities is slowly becoming negative towards white males as they don't tick any of those boxes for companies. I'm increasingly feeling villified because of my gender and ethnicity.
  • 1
    @cmarshall10450 when have you ever been labeled less than your fellow man though? When were you ever owned by another person? When were you told you couldnt vote because you got to much sun and your melotonin levels were higher? When was the white man told you couldn't do what you wanted with your body? You know where the white man was? Making those decisions for everyone else. You're not "vilified". Youre entitled, and finally seeing everyone else get what you already have.
  • 0
    @cmarshall10450 you do know that even with diverse hiring policies there's still a white male predominance, right? it's like crying that you didn't get a slice of a pie when the rest of the pie is yours. also, intersectionality exists. life is much harder for a blind person who's also black and LGBT, for instance. imagine your already low chances getting cut by a tenth, and add hate crimes to it
  • 1
    @ScribeOfGoD emmmm.... If we're looking back at history of things like that, most of those things apply to disabled people. They've been used as slaves, not been given voting rights and generally been shunned by society because of their disability. The word handicap is a slur towards disabled people that has become common language now. I can put myself in a group that is entitled but I can also put myself in a group that pretty much has nothing entitled to them.

    I could say that you are entitled for being able bodied (if that is true) due to the world being designed for able bodied people and then having to be adapted for disabled people or, more commonly, disabled people adapting themselves to the world around them.
  • 1
    @Demolishun But hey at least they got their polticial echo champers now. Doesnt mind thet have caused the the entire polticial scene being at it worst ever. So bad the states fights the federaltion depending on the governor.

    Both the major parties are hateful idioic sides with both extremly authoritarian and liberal views depending on the things.

    I love how the US has more parties, but people also keeps voting on the same parties and expecting and changes, dont know if thats funny or just sad.
  • 0
    That whole abortion thing is purely about whether women should be considered to be actual humans or not. Humans have the right to modify their own body at any time and may even end their own life if they really want to. Non-humans, don't have that right. Their owners decide when they get pregnant and when they will be slaughtered. The purpose of a human is whatever that human decides it to be. The purpose of non-humans is to serve the humans.

    So should women be considered to be actual humans? If yes, they are allowed to remove anything that is part of their body - including undeveloped children. If no, whether they have to carry the yet unborn child till full development or have to abort it, depends on whether the state needs more troops for the Eurasian War.
  • 3
    @Oktokolo Not really at all. Its quite simple actually, their logic/opinions is unborn "babies" are considered living lives, that means they find it immoral to what they consider "killing" a "living being".

    Its totally wrong to say the reason behind it is to oppress women, when its clearly wrong and a lot of women ironically "pro-life" themselves.

    Also clearly nobody gave a fuck about the "my body my choice argument when the opposing government tired to force everyone to take the vaccine"

    Another of many reasons i find both major polticial parties in the US to be built on idiotic ideas.
  • 2
    @Frederick "my body my choice" doesn't apply to vaccines because it's a social pact. you don't vaccinate only for yourself, but also to protect the vulnerable around you.

    the issue is regarding healthcare. women that want to abort will do it in any circumstances, all that the law is gonna change is wether they are cared for and wether they're not punished for it. to prohibit abortions is to sentence poor women to death in many cases, and people shouldn't be arrested for trying to save a life. but smh they call the other side "pro life"
  • 0
    @Frederick In a country having the death sentence, it surely can't be about lives. Also, the argument isn't used to force women to become children until all their egg cells are used up - despite that egg cells obviously being lives too.

    Or is it only considered life after fusioning with a male sperm cell?
  • 1
    @darksideofyay Again i am only disagreeing with your first statement.

    My comment was only to point out what their mindset most likely in instead of what his comment suggested.

    Not really that i support it at all. I am mostly againest most laws that exist.

    My body my choice.
  • 1
    @Oktokolo Never stated that i was agreeing or thinking their logic is good. Just that your assumtion is incorrect.
  • 0
    @Frederick But my assumption is correct. They may state, that it is about lives - but that obviously is a lie.
  • 0
    @Oktokolo How so? By the logic i could say that like all the people in the states who doesnt support the liberal self defence & gub laws in some states are supporting criminal lives.

    That would be obvious a fiction made up to alienize people who doesnt agree with the poltics about those laws.

    Their stupid "pro life" argument only applies to innocent "lifes" so obvious criminals arent included there (yes innocent people are executed as well, but thats an entire another issue due to the pure justice system in the us).

    Anyway just to make it clearly as i already stated i am in no way supporting it, since find it horriable asf.
  • 0
    @Frederick: It isn't about all innocent life. It seems to be specificly only about the few egg cells that merge with a sperm cell.
  • 0
    @darksideofyay

    >women make 0.70 to a dollar a man makes

    This is an outright lie and falsehood. It's not remotely true, unless you include all women who do not work and bundle them together with all women who work and compare them to all men. It doesn't take into account careers or separate out women who stay home to raise kids.

    It's outright wrong and lazy and people need to stop using this bullshit atavistic that doesn't work the way you think it does.
  • 1
  • 1
    @darksideofyay he's not wrong.

    Women made 70 cents per dollar 20+ years ago.

    Thanks to laws and regulations, that's now at 82 cents per dollar.

    He's also not wrong about there being multiple gaps in pay. There's multiple disparities among women of color across nearly every available occupation.

    It doesn't matter if a woman is educated higher or has more experience, she's almost always paid less than a male equivalent.

    Sadly, since 2020 the pay gap between the sexes has been set back more than 30 years.

    How many trillions of dollars have been stolen from women in the workplace over the last 30 years though...I wonder who benefited the most from this gap? 🤔

    https://blog.dol.gov/2021/03/...
  • 1
    @sariel if you take a lot of stuff of consideration, the pay gap turns into 0.80 out of 1, but that's still bs. I don't see the point in debating how big is the gap actually when the problem is that there's a gap at all

    edit.: I'm also aware of intersectionality, that still doesn't change anything. last time i checked black women made 15 cents less than white women
  • 1
    @darksideofyay I don't disagree, a gap of any kind that's completely dependant on any trait other than education and experience is pointless.

    I however was not debating it, rather bringing facts to an emotional response from @djsumdog.

    Equality for all; regardless of ethnicity, gender, orientation, is what every living person on this planet should demand.

    Anything less and we're fooling ourselves into believing in the power of the people.
  • 1
    @darksideofyay it's also even less for Latino women.
Add Comment