“We need to increase employee surveillance to identify workplace unhappiness and take appropriate administrative action against employees costing revenue by being unhappy at work, against corporate directives to all non-executive staff requiring they be very happy during work hours as a condition of their employment.”
-The owners, almost certainly
You can always count on the capitalists to prescribe increased beatings as the cure for declining morale. Meanwhile you never see them sharing that expensive bar in their office filled with top shelf liquor with their unhappy employees…
And the immediate concern is about what it can cost the economy. Not the social impacts regarding family, friends, and society as a whole but the economy.
We will sacrifice our entire society to protect our beloved economy!
You hit the nail on the head.
The entire point of an economy is to be a mere tool to better distribute goods and services within a society for the explicit benefit of said society. If an economy is working against a society, it is literally doing the opposite of what its role is.
Whenever theres a crisis under our modern global rigged capitalism, the first thing that happens is the well bribed, middle manager politicians come out to assure the citizenry that any and all cruel measures will be taken against society in order to protect our beloved economy. it’s a perversion of priorities. The tail wagging the dog.
Our modern global economy has turned humanity against humanity for the sake of stoking sociopathic greed, both in the few that have dangerous, society warping levels of wealth, and the billions of wannabe temporarily embarrassed millionaires fucking other peasants over for scraps.
The global economy needs to be smashed to bits and rebuilt with entirely different goals and values, or it will make our species destroy ourselves in the name of profit for a few thousand narcissistic asshole families.
We won’t though, we’ll keep following the owner’s orders to our doom, even after they’re barking them remotely from their luxury climate change bunker compounds protecting them from the climate apocalypse they caused, until the last peasants struggling to survive stop bothering to answer on the other end.
People are always like “Why is there no revolution!?”
Because most aren’t willing to risk their lives and their comfort to make the world better for everyone. “What do I get out of it?” they will ask.
Part of the issue is past revolutions didn’t have a ruling class that literally employed the best psychologists that money can buy to spew propaganda that has been scientifically proven to confuse citizens and change minds.
The idea that it will get easier to fight back against your oppressors as they grow their pile of tools and weapons with which to control society is a joke.
The longer is waited, the harder ripping off the fucking band-aid will be.
Wait too long and there won’t be a band-aid to rip off as mass extinction comes for us all.
Except one of them has a history of the science of psychology behind it, as well as the many certifications and education you need to be a psychologist, and the other was a propagandist with no deep scientific education behind them, no showing why the techniques they were using were effective (because they often weren’t). One of them has evidence and science behind them and the other does not. They are not the same things.
Literally different things.
EDIT: Also it is worth noting that modern propaganda began after revolutions against monarchies. The French state post-revolution was a hotbed of propaganda.
So, even by your argument, its clear that modern propaganda methods took root after the age of revolutions and at the beginning of the age of Nations.
None of those prove that a psychologist using well documented evidence on human psychology is the same as fucking nitwits naming monsters after people they didn’t like. I literally referenced the era of modern propaganda techniques, which coincides with a growth of the understanding of psychology in promoting propaganda. I didn’t say “propaganda never existed at all prior to the revolutions.”
But keep ignoring specific words I use to try to convince yourself you’re right. Seriously, comparing psychologists to people who named monsters after disliked people. Fucking laugh riot.
I’ll be waiting patiently for your semantic objection to something inconsequential in one of my sources so that you don’t have a bruised ego 😄
Right on cue, champ!
Honestly if you can’t see how invoking monsters to inspire fear is just a rudimentary employment of psychological warfare, I’m not sure you have any business speaking to psychology as a whole.
You think you’re clever, but you’re not. I’m not sure someone whose education seems to be focused on an era where psychology didn’t exist as a discipline should be expounding on it, either.
So, the people invoking monster names knew what psychological warfare was because they understood psychology? I call bollocks on that.
But keep telling yourself you’re right and just misunderstood. I’m sure that will mean fuck-all when you’re dead and nobody remembers you existed, just like me.
They control us through propaganda to make us as self-interested and sociopathic as them, as you said, using the major media they own and the policy making politicians they also own to make greed “rational self-interest” mandatory from Kindergarten through colleges of economics and beyond. Then they point to the society they’ve made cruel and selfish, and declare capitalism to be human nature, partly as a normalizing tactic, and partly to feel more peace about their cruel, withered hearts.
Their other major tool is what I like to call “subsistence opiates.” Pathetic niceties people cling to that often do more harm than good: social media, fast food, literal opiates, etc. Things that don’t make most people’s lives better, but allow them to endure the pain capitalism induces, and that they’re terrified that revolution would inturrupt the slow dopamine drip of. This is the main reason there will sadly be no revolution.
The good news is that will make collapse an eventual certainty. A house dependant on the impossibility of infinite growth will collapse, even if it takes the form of humanity destroying the habitability of its only world, as we are racing to do.
Because most aren’t willing to risk their lives and their comfort to make the world better for everyone. “What do I get out of it?” they will ask.
I don’t think this is it. I think it doesn’t happen because people don’t know who will be with them. If I knew there was going to be a general strike were 20 to 30% of the population stopped working, I’d be in. However, I don’t want to torpedo my entire life for a movement with no followers.
Slowly but surelly over the last couple of decades the political discourse moved from “best for people” to “best for money”.
By now politics isn’t about doing what’s best for people anymore (it’s what’s best for “The Economy” or for “Businesses”) though we get thrown a few never really fullfilled promises (almost exactly like modern marketing, even using Focus Groups to find out what are the things to say which will have the most positive reaction from the public).
And just like when companies successfully shift to a Marketing-heavy strategy, for Political Parties too the quality of their product - policies - went down as they shifted to marketing as a way to keep their “consumers” - i.e. voters - “buying” their product, and the price - in terms of how much wealth they’re extracting from the broader society for their leaders and their paymasters and how little they leave for everybody else - has gone up.
Unsurprisingly, by now more and more of people are getting dissatisfied even if most don’t quite get it how they got there.
It kind of makes sense to put it that way. Presumably, workers being unhappy might make some sense if it was a tradeoff between productivity and work-life balance.
But no, it’s bad for both social effects and economic effects
What’s the point in increasing wages if prices go up faster?
Remember: products are priced according to what people are willing to pay, not what they cost to produce.
The answer isn’t to make more, it’s to spend less. The only people who should be taking a hit are those profiting. They’ll still make more money than any of you can ever hope to dream of.
They are not including any electric motors. They have included two more Internal Combustion Engines.
Important to make these distinctions in the age of ICE, Hybrid and EVs being common. People don’t really know the difference usually but motors are usually a lot less prone to failure than engines. Explosions aren’t healthy!
Okay start calling gas engines “Internal Combustion Motors” around some car types. See how long until someone calls you out as an idiot and you can bring up your dictionary and show them how you’re right and they’re wrong.
I’m in my 50s and the Engine vs Motor debate has been raging for longer than I’ve been around.
Now if you’ll excuse me I need to put some motor oil in my motorcycle so I can ride it over to the Department of Motor Vehicles and get it registered. I’m taking it to compete in some motorsports this weekend and it needs to be street legal.
Find me a DC Electric Engine sold as a part from GM, Ford, Toyota, BMW, Honda, Tesla, Chevrolet, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Porsche, Buick, Renault, Mazda, Bentley, Kia, Chrysler, Jeep, Audi or Subaru. I bet every car with one from the last 30 years is going to call it a DC Electric motor.
We’re not talking about the usage of Motor and how it’s been used with other words to describe all manner of things from locomotives to motels. We’re talking about the Engines and Motors that power vehicles themselves.
Anything less is just motorboating for the sake of enjoyment, and who doesn’t like a good motorboat? It’s just off topic is all.
Next you’re going to tell me that Cars aren’t just a shortened version of Horseless Carriage.
Oh and btw, when you look for “motoroil” the listings are all Engine Oil… guess the terminology has changed since our great grandparents. www.autozone.com/…/engine-oil
All gas/diesel engines are motors, both by dictionary definition and colloquially. Nobody calls an electric motor a DC engine, but that has nothing to do with gas engines regularly being called motors.
You two are saying different things. The first poster just can’t read. Your point is more valid - we don’t know yet whether this attack was motivated by his activism. Though not unimaginable in the current circumstance.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.