You don’t need to be dramatic and label an appropriate assessment of the misogyny of lesbian porn as “all men are evil”.
You must intentionally ignore how and why so-called “lesbian” porn is misogynistic. The baseline of the vast majority of lesbian porn doesn’t engage with how lesbians actually behave, for example, but rather it projects what male viewers want to see - typically with one or both actors behaving as a stereotypical man would.
Billy Corgan has been crazy for a long time.
Yeap. They don’t care about the law…they just care about what sounds good to their people in clips.
If you’re a Democrat your car immediately becomes a lethal weapon are you must be stopped by any means necessary - if the pedestrian is a Republican.
If you’re a Republican you may use your vehicle to kill any Democrat under any circumstances.
There’s no attempt to reconcile these two conflicting opinions…from a knuckle dragging Fox viewer to SCOTUS.
Thanks for the bad faith exchange a la Reddit. Nostalgic. Some people just want to pick fights and be jerks, and there’s nothing I can do about it.
It’s weird that they’d release it.
Her last words were something like “I’m not mad” and his were “fucking bitch”.
I got banned from Reddit for quoting Worf from Star Trek.
Yes. Chainsaws are very safe…if you get a newer chainsaw you basically have to intentionally injure yourself with it.
Seems like this is a pointless argument about potentially dangerous vs statistically dangerous.
I’ll concede that you’re paid well because all the training you receive to make your dangerous job safe puts a premium on labour in your sector. Better?
I’m trying to stick to your original question, though: the most (statistically) dangerous jobs under capitalism aren’t very well paid - relatively (like resource extraction), and under communism all jobs aren’t paid the same.
His job is potentially dangerous, not statistically dangerous. It’s statistically very safe. We don’t call air travel less safe because you might die more often when there’s an accident…the analogy holds here.
It’s beside the point because the most dangerous jobs aren’t well paid under capitalism, and you misunderstand communism if you believe that all jobs pay the same.
My statements are accurate and please miss me with the ad hominem attacks…they’re not a substitute for an argument.
Your job remains statistically safe for all the reasons you stated. Yes, your job has a very high proportion of fatalities vs injuries…I accounted for that.
I’m not trying to diminish you or your job. I’m just saying you’re paid well, not because it’s dangerous, but rather because you need a lot of expertise to do it and it’s more difficult for your industry to find people that fit the qualifications.
The most dangerous jobs, like the ones I listed earlier, do not tend to pay very well if “danger” is your only metric.
Getting back to the topic, under communism people who work in dangerous or high skilled jobs would be more likely to make more money…not less.
Your job remains statistically safe. Calling it “dangerous” isn’t accurate.
Your argument is like saying flying is more dangerous than other travel because you die more often when there’s an accident.
You gave me a very specific job title…one that I happen to know is statistically safe. If you have data that proves otherwise, present it.
The OP didn’t say they were in “heavy industry” they said they were in a specific job. A job I happen to know is safe.
Not sure why you’d make an unforced error and change his job to your job. Especially when I literally said your job was among the most dangerous in my reply.
If you asking how you secure your residence against ICE…good luck with that. They have legal access to an expansion of the Patriot Act for warrants, and they have toys they’d love to use against any home security. All that physical security is going to do is give them probable cause.
What we should expect to see shortly is a Red State Bar Association that’s respected by SCOTUS, and under circumstances where SCOTUS can, it will force blue states to accept its law.
Trump always has half a solution…but it’s just for the political kick from the announcement and has no policy follow up.
If Trump wanted to actually do something he’d need to account the other half of a strategy and fund both parts: yes, monopolization or heavy ownership of homes should be banned. But that does nothing if you don’t deal with the cost of materials to build a home in the first place, for example.
Your job isn’t dangerous. It’s potentially dangerous…but well-regulated and rated as very safe by employment standards.
Resource extraction jobs, for example, are statistically the least safe and tend to not pay well.
Your personal motivations don’t represent any society, at large.
Your premise is that people only choose jobs because of the salary? I reject that premise. All information I’m aware of tells us that most people choose jobs because of aptitude, interest, skills and prestige, not because of financial concerns (given that all jobs compensate equally).
It should also be noted that communism doesn’t mean uniform pay. You need to go back to the drawing board and rephrase your question.
Also it’s absurd to suggest that capitalism rewards dangerous jobs more, when it clearly doesn’t. Your example is terrible because power generation is heavily regulated and very safe. The most dangerous jobs are extraction or harvesting jobs, and they can be high paid…but are not well paid in the most dangerous circumstances.
Comparing the innate misogyny of most porn to being right handed isn’t appropriate. That sort of analogy, comparing something harmful to something benign, is the core of the problem - it serves to normalize misogyny.
We don’t need to go beyond the topic to illustrate misogyny and harm. For example, a porn store or site displaying simulated violence or underage scenarios to sell it products would be more appropriate. Prioritizing those categories is similar to prioritizing misogynistic lesbian porn over ethical lesbian porn, for example.