Queen Elizabeth II

[Jub]

You don't need to be such an asshole about it.

A rich asshole whom none of us knew personally died at an age well beyond the average life expectancy of her nation taken care of by the state and surrounded by stolen wealth and a gaggle of out-of-touch hangers-on. Why shouldn't I be an asshole?

[Jub]

So, morally neutral?

How does one get to be a billionaire without exploiting people and therefore becoming evil? Even mere inheritance without divestment of those funds is still evil as hoarded funds and the concentration of wealth only serve to harm society. The only ethical way to have a billion dollars is to immediately give it away and descend to the mere mortal realm of a comfortable multi-millionaire.

[Elfdart]

Looks like some in the UK aren't handling the news very well:



I know there's been a lot of gloating on the grounds that the British Empire was not only an empire on which the sun never sets, but as Ernest Jones wrote "and on which the blood never dries", but the BE did bring a something to the world that we should all be grateful for: dry British humor (see above and read the Twitter feed HERE -it's pure comedy gold)

Seriously though, I think blaming her for the countless atrocities of a dead empire is like attacking the mascot of a company that went out of business.

[Ralin]

How does one get to be a billionaire without exploiting people and therefore becoming evil? Even mere inheritance without divestment of those funds is still evil as hoarded funds and the concentration of wealth only serve to harm society.

Easily. What you call 'exploitation' mostly just means running a business or investing and making money off stocks and shit. A lot of money. Nothing evil about that. Nor is there anything wrong with 'hoarding' funds, whatever that means. Owning something means you get to decide how you should spend it. Not Jub. Because people of means aren't your bitch.

The only ethical way to have a billion dollars is to immediately give it away and descend to the mere mortal realm of a comfortable multi-millionaire.

Nah. In fact, there's a very strong moral reason to do the exact opposite. It spites entitled little shits like you, which is a good that outweighs plenty of other concerns.

Seriously though, I think blaming her for the countless atrocities of a dead empire is like attacking the mascot of a company that went out of business.

Mascot is understating it more than a little I think. She had limited actual control over the government, sure, but a lot of heinous shit was done in her name. If someone organizes a massacre in Wong's name and Wong knows about it and doesn't loudly say that's heinous and evil and everyone doing it should get fucked and call on the people doing it to be stopped then Wong's not innocent in the whole thing.

And by dead empire atrocities were talking stuff well within living memory. She wore a crown and sat on a throne decorated with jewels taken from the places they conquered.

[Ralin]

How does one get to be a billionaire without exploiting people and therefore becoming evil? Even mere inheritance without divestment of those funds is still evil as hoarded funds and the concentration of wealth only serve to harm society.

Easily. What you call 'exploitation' mostly just means running a business or investing and making money off stocks and shit. A lot of money. Nothing evil about that. Nor is there anything wrong with 'hoarding' funds, whatever that means. Owning something means you get to decide how you should spend it. Not Jub. Because people of means aren't your bitch.

The only ethical way to have a billion dollars is to immediately give it away and descend to the mere mortal realm of a comfortable multi-millionaire.

Nah. In fact, there's a very strong moral reason to do the exact opposite. It spites entitled little shits like you, which is a good that outweighs plenty of other concerns.

Seriously though, I think blaming her for the countless atrocities of a dead empire is like attacking the mascot of a company that went out of business.

Mascot is understating it more than a little I think. She had limited actual control over the government, sure, but a lot of heinous shit was done in her name. If someone organizes a massacre in Wong's name and Wong knows about it and doesn't loudly say that's heinous and evil and everyone doing it should get fucked and call on the people doing it to be stopped then Wong's not innocent in the whole thing.

And by dead empire atrocities were talking stuff well within living memory. She wore a crown and sat on a throne decorated with jewels taken from the places they conquered.

[Jub]

Easily. What you call 'exploitation' mostly just means running a business or investing and making money off stocks and shit. A lot of money. Nothing evil about that. Nor is there anything wrong with 'hoarding' funds, whatever that means. Owning something means you get to decide how you should spend it. Not Jub. Because people of means aren't your bitch.

Running a business means exploiting people. Look at how every business from large to small fights against increases to minimum wage, additional health and safety costs, and anything else that would cost them even a percentage of their profits. Finding the least you can spend on everything, including your staff, is how one creates a company large enough to make one a billionaire.

You don't need to look far for examples such as Starbucks and Amazon and their attempts at union busting, how worker wages compared to CEO wages have changed drastically as unions broke down, how companies play games with overtime and work people exactly to where they don't need to pay them any benefits. Of course, when one thinks like Ralin anything is moral and justified so long as it works out in Ralin's favor.

[Gandalf]

Whatever one thinks of the Monarchy as an institution, IMHO overall Queen Elizabeth II as a person conducted herself pretty well given the circumstances and what was expected of her. She will be missed.

She had the power to affect change and instead used it to cover up the royal family's dirty laundry and maintain their prestige. That's leaving aside the monstrous things she did like failing to aid or even visit her mentally disabled first cousins in the care home in which they had been hidden. She's as bad as any billionaire and worse because as the face of a powerful institution she had means of influence that she refused to use to better the world around her.

Rot in Peace and may the rest of the line do the same as soon as possible.

You don't need to be such an asshole about it.

There's no need to be anything about it.

Considering the Queen was at the head of a crime family with a looong record of blood and cruelty, I think celebrations are in order. Look at the social media from countries and continents which used to be under the heel of the crown. Solid material there.

[Ralin]

Running a business means exploiting people.

No it doesn't.

Look at how every business from large to small fights against increases to minimum wage, additional health and safety costs, and anything else that would cost them even a percentage of their profits.

None of that is exploitative. Hiring someone does not create some sort of obligation between individuals (who may not even know each other!) to retroactively give an employee more money than they agreed to ahead of time.

Finding the least you can spend on everything, including your staff, is how one creates a company large enough to make one a billionaire.

Ah, so you think billionaires are bad because they don't waste enough money. Weird.

You don't need to look far for examples such as Starbucks and Amazon and their attempts at union busting

It's good that companies like Amazon lead the fight against organized crime. Unions are extortionists and really no different from the Mafia or a drug cartel demanding protection money. Imagine paying someone to clean your house and them turning around and declaring they're part-owner of it and threatening to knife anyone you hire to replace them. That's a union for you.

how worker wages compared to CEO wages have changed drastically as unions broke down,

You mean how wages became more fair and balanced against what the worker was bringing to the table?

how companies play games with overtime and work people exactly to where they don't need to pay them any benefits.

Nothing more evil than complying with labor laws!

Of course, when one thinks like Ralin anything is moral and justified so long as it works out in Ralin's favor.

Of course, when one thinks like Jub anything that benefits you personally is okay because hateful MF-ers think anyone who has something they want is fair game.

Anyway, people are competing on Twitter to list their favorite colonial atrocities that were committed against their country (or family!) under Elizabeth's reign. Which I think is much more relevant than Jub's seething anger that he doesn't have a rich mommy or daddy to pay his bills too.

[Jub]

None of that is exploitative. Hiring someone does not create some sort of obligation between individuals (who may not even know each other!) to retroactively give an employee more money than they agreed to ahead of time.

Given that we live in a capitalist society, what prospects does one have that don't involve working? The system, for the vast majority of workers, is rigged in the favor of those offering a job versus the ones seeking the job. The rich, which many business owners are, also have vastly outsized power to influence the laws of the land in their favor.

Thus the very act of being an employer in anything but a co-op is an exploitative one.

Ah, so you think billionaires are bad because they don't waste enough money. Weird.

Hoarding money for the sake of hoarding money is fucking evil.

It's good that companies like Amazon lead the fight against organized crime. Unions are extortionists and really no different from the Mafia or a drug cartel demanding protection money. Imagine paying someone to clean your house and them turning around and declaring they're part-owner of it and threatening to knife anyone you hire to replace them. That's a union for you.

Imagine asking for two weeks notice for an employee to quit but not extending them the same courtesy when you seek to fire them... Unions exist because the scales must be forced into balance or you get shit like right-to-work states.

You mean how wages became more fair and balanced against what the worker was bringing to the table?

So that explains why CEOs that lose their company billions still get multi-million dollar golden parachutes. It's all that value they bring!

Nothing more evil than complying with labor laws!

If I provoke you into violence and then kill you, I may be within the law but I am not moral.

Anyway, people are competing on Twitter to list their favorite colonial atrocities that were committed against their country (or family!) under Elizabeth's reign.

I'm taking nothing away from those with valid complaints by stating that she also failed to dismantle a corrupt and wealth-sapping institution.

-----

Also, does anybody here want to deal with Ralin's anti-union pro-capitalist stance whenever these things come up? I bet Tev and Broomstick especially love seeing you favor corporations when they've been pretty continually fucked by employers and the lax worker's rights in the states they live in.

Go fuck yourself Ralin. Maybe catch some terrible disease from licking corporate boots.

[Ralin]

Given that we live in a capitalist society, what prospects does one have that don't involve working?

I'm not your life coach and I'm not interested in giving you a blueprint.

The system, for the vast majority of workers, is rigged in the favor of those offering a job versus the ones seeking the job.

Why yes, Jub. When you choose to work for someone you are choosing to accept a subordinate position to them. You went to them asking for a job, not the other way around, and you're doing it (usually) on their property. It stands to reason they would be in a position of power over you.

Thus the very act of being an employer in anything but a co-op is an exploitative one.

If you believe that quit. You presumably took your job to support yourself. If you believe you’re being exploited than walk away and never come back.

Hoarding money for the sake of hoarding money is fucking evil.

Nah, it’s completely morally neutral. People are entitled to do as they please with their things barring some specific obligation like being a parent or making an agreement or some such.

Imagine asking for two weeks notice for an employee to quit but not extending them the same courtesy when you seek to fire them...

I don’t have to imagine it. It’s pretty common

Unions exist because the scales must be forced into balance or you get shit like right-to-work states.

The scales should not be forced into ‘balance’ because we’re describing what is and should be a fundamentally inequal relationship.

So that explains why CEOs that lose their company billions still get multi-million dollar golden parachutes. It's all that value they bring!

You…do grasp that the company exists largely to make money for the people who own and run it, right?

I'm taking nothing away from those with valid complaints by stating that she also failed to dismantle a corrupt and wealth-sapping institution.

-----

Also, does anybody here want to deal with Ralin's anti-union pro-capitalist stance whenever these things come up? I bet Tev and Broomstick especially love seeing you favor corporations when they've been pretty continually fucked by employers and the lax worker's rights in the states they live in.

Derailing from the real issues to grind your axe about people of means trivializes the actual reasons to criticize her by conflating them with non-issues.

Go fuck yourself Ralin. Maybe catch some terrible disease from licking corporate boots.

Just think Jub. If you put this sort of effort into having achievements of your own instead of being a hateful little MF-er lusting after other people’s money maybe you wouldn’t feel such a need to tear down nobler men!

[Jub]

Why yes, Jub. When you choose to work for someone you are choosing to accept a subordinate position to them. You went to them asking for a job, not the other way around, and you're doing it (usually) on their property. It stands to reason they would be in a position of power over you.

So you admit that the game is rigger in the employer's favor because society such as it is requires work, even if that work is worthless, and the employer can set the terms by which work is doled out.

If you believe that quit. You presumably took your job to support yourself. If you believe you’re being exploited than walk away and never come back.

To what end? Society is set up such that one is forced to work for one exploiter or another or else to become an exploiter themself. There is no option to remain in society without working if one wishes any standard of living.

Nah, it’s completely morally neutral. People are entitled to do as they please with their things barring some specific obligation like being a parent or making an agreement or some such.

It is most certainly not morally neutral to have more than you could ever need while doing everything to drive down the cost of labor so you can amass wealth ever more efficiently.

I don’t have to imagine it. It’s pretty common

Yet it is not universal and if employers had it their way every state would be a right-to-work state.

The scales should not be forced into ‘balance’ because we’re describing what is and should be a fundamentally inequal relationship.

So it must have also been right for slavers to get value out of the human lives they purchased or for medieval lords to extract value from the serfs born on their land. After all, they had a fundamentally inequal relationship and the lord, by virtue of having money and land, must be morally right to administer it as he saw fit.

You…do grasp that the company exists largely to make money for the people who own and run it, right?

This is why I question the large bonuses for executives who lose the company money. The worker who costs the company $100 would surely be fired and steps may even be taken to recover those funds, meanwhile, the CEO who loses them billions is paid to leave and may even get bonuses on top of that... This system is very logical and makes much sense.

[Ralin]

I'm done with this derail.

[Gandalf]

To what end? Society is set up such that one is forced to work for one exploiter or another or else to become an exploiter themself. There is no option to remain in society without working if one wishes any standard of living.

I think the term you want there is wage slavery. You need to keep the exploitative job with shit conditions, because without it you're fucked. Like the whole Amazon thing under the piss bottle billionaire.

Also, in some on topic local controversy; the Aboriginal flag on Sydney Harbour Bridge was at half mast today. Presumably someone didn't think that through.

[His Divine Shadow]

Whatever one thinks of the Monarchy as an institution, IMHO overall Queen Elizabeth II as a person conducted herself pretty well given the circumstances and what was expected of her. She will be missed.

I don't think she did and I won't miss her.

https://twitter.com/StefGotBooted/statu ... 3494042625

https://twitter.com/Aldanimarki/status/ ... 3219116032

I mean, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg but I can't be arsed to look for more.

[ray245]

This is why I question the large bonuses for executives who lose the company money. The worker who costs the company $100 would surely be fired and steps may even be taken to recover those funds, meanwhile, the CEO who loses them billions is paid to leave and may even get bonuses on top of that... This system is very logical and makes much sense.

It's why I think it's only in certain industries, and even then only exclusively referring to the top end of the spectrum tvat you get bosses getting their dues as for failures as compared to the employees.

I'm talking about football ( not the American kind, that's not football), especially in the top end of the competition in Premier league and etc for elite footballers.

It's one of the very few industry where you can see the employees being more valued than the manager, and any manager that fails to perform gets sacked.

This is because the competition is actually intense and failure to perform can be easily seen by the public.

Despite what most capitalist thinks about capitalism is a competitive system, in reality it is still more of a cartel. The level of competition often aren't fierce enough for the poor performance of a company to be linked to any particular CEOs and etc.

And most capitalistic system simply isn't willing to embrace a truly competitive environment in which bad decisions and bad decision makers are punished.

Our economic structures protects the bad decision makers because it is still a cartel.

[Ralin]

I mean, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg but I can't be arsed to look for more.

Apparently she/her people (which are functionally the same for these purposes) successfully pushed for the royal household staff to be exempt from various laws and regulations prohibiting racial discrimination in hiring back when they became a thing.

EDIT: Just noticed that was mentioned in the next tweet in the link

[Jub]

I'm done with this derail.

Then you concede the debate. Not that you need to concede, your arguments are painfully transparent as the "fuck you, got mine, the system works for me" tripe they are.

[Jub]

This is why I question the large bonuses for executives who lose the company money. The worker who costs the company $100 would surely be fired and steps may even be taken to recover those funds, meanwhile, the CEO who loses them billions is paid to leave and may even get bonuses on top of that... This system is very logical and makes much sense.

It's why I think it's only in certain industries, and even then only exclusively referring to the top end of the spectrum tvat you get bosses getting their dues as for failures as compared to the employees.

I'm talking about football ( not the American kind, that's not football), especially in the top end of the competition in Premier league and etc for elite footballers.

It's one of the very few industry where you can see the employees being more valued than the manager, and any manager that fails to perform gets sacked.

This is because the competition is actually intense and failure to perform can be easily seen by the public.

Despite what most capitalist thinks about capitalism is a competitive system, in reality it is still more of a cartel. The level of competition often aren't fierce enough for the poor performance of a company to be linked to any particular CEOs and etc.

And most capitalistic system simply isn't willing to embrace a truly competitive environment in which bad decisions and bad decision makers are punished.

Our economic structures protects the bad decision makers because it is still a cartel.

This is so very true. There is very little real competition in business because the status quo suits companies and thus stagnation and rot set in.

How many companies death spiral, cutting costs to pay shareholders rather than innovating and reinvesting to try to stimulate new avenues of revenue? Why are individuals supposed to have 3-months of liquid assets on hand but not companies? If the landscape was truly competitive each recession would kill all unfit companies and yet we suffer round after round of bailouts because a company must never suffer any real risk.

[Ralin]

Then you concede the debate. Not that you need to concede, your arguments are painfully transparent as the "fuck you, got mine, the system works for me" tripe they are.

Oh, there is no debate and I'm not conceding anything. I'm just not willing to listen to you broken recording about how you think you're entitled to other people's money.

[Jub]

Then you concede the debate. Not that you need to concede, your arguments are painfully transparent as the "fuck you, got mine, the system works for me" tripe they are.

Oh, there is no debate and I'm not conceding anything. I'm just not willing to listen to you broken recording about how you think you're entitled to other people's money.

DR5: Quote where I specifically said I was entitled to anybodies money. My argument has been that billionaires existing is a societal ill not that they should all pay me personally. Framing me as asking for a handout where I have not done so is a step too far. You will retract your statement.

[Ralin]

DR5: Quote where I specifically said I was entitled to anybodies money. My argument has been that billionaires existing is a societal ill not that they should all pay me personally. Framing me as asking for a handout where I have not done so is a step too far. You will retract your statement.

Let me clarify. I don't think you want a handout. Because I don't think a handout would be enough for you, despite you using poverty as an pretext. You want power and control. You (like the union shitheads you admire so much) want to be able to walk into someone else's life and onto someone else's property and tell them how to spend their money and run their business because you just can't stand the idea of someone being above you and not needing to justify themselves to you. The absolute worse thing you can imagine is a liberal like Clinton setting up a functional welfare system with working government labor law enforcement and the like because then you'd have fewer excuses to justify being a hateful MF-er towards people who have more than you.

[Jub]

DR5: Quote where I specifically said I was entitled to anybodies money. My argument has been that billionaires existing is a societal ill not that they should all pay me personally. Framing me as asking for a handout where I have not done so is a step too far. You will retract your statement.

Let me clarify. I don't think you want a handout. Because I don't think a handout would be enough for you, despite you using poverty as an pretext. You want power and control. You (like the union shitheads you admire so much) want to be able to walk into someone else's life and onto someone else's property and tell them how to spend their money and run their business because you just can't stand the idea of someone being above you and not needing to justify themselves to you. The absolute worse thing you can imagine is a liberal like Clinton setting up a functional welfare system with working government labor law enforcement and the like because then you'd have fewer excuses to justify being a hateful MF-er towards people who have more than you.

Where did I bring up my own financial situation in this thread? As for me demanding things of people, yes I can and will demand that we force landowners and business owners to give concessions. I demand that because otherwise the feedback loop of wealth attracting wealth will snowball and create wealth gaps the likes of which we have never seen. We have also seen what life for the working class is like before union's rose. It was child labor, 7 day work weeks, company scrip, and other horrors I would not wish to see return.

As for government support I would welcome a UBI set to a living wage combined with strong rent controls and inflation control on all items needed for a long and healthy life. Let a life of work be only for those who desire luxury items or to fulfill a personal need. We have so much surplus that service jobs for the sake of making a company money need not exist.

[His Divine Shadow]

Man some people just love to suck the dick of the people making everything in the world worse for everyone.

[Ralin]

Man some people just love to suck the dick of the people making everything in the world worse for everyone.

I guess Wong was wrong all those years back. There really is such a thing as being too righteous to understand.

[His Divine Shadow]

I guess it's hard to understand anything from inside a bubble of propaganda