It’s been a stereotype for at least the last 50 years. Why has this never changed? Why has organized labor not had a substantial effect for such an essential part of the workforce?

  • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    So, apparently you don’t care how many people suffer and die so you can claim a moral victory.

    If that’s not the voice of privilege I don’t know what it.

    And I don’t want to fight. I’d much rather find an acceptable compromise and be able to make gains afterwards [like Frederick Douglas did when he backed Lincoln over the Abolition candidate.]

    If you feel the need to be a martyr, go ahead. Don’t drag other people down with you.

    • MerryJaneDoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      There is no final victory. Ever. Not even an imaginary moral victory.

      There is only and has only ever been the fight.

      It’s human nature.

      Case in point: The tone of your comment above is combative and accusatory, rather than friendly or neutral. Why?

      • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        If you want to fight, you have to be prepared to lose.

        Your words.

        You are the one with the idea that it has to be a fight.

        Like I said, it’s better to compromise and take small victories instead of push for a heroic resolution.

        And, unless you feel like answering the question I posed* before, don’t bother to answer.

        *I asked why we should do as Frederick Douglas did, supporting imperfect candidates who might be persuaded in the future, over ‘perfect’ candidates with no chance of winning?

        • MerryJaneDoe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          Let’s review:

          1. You don’t believe in fighting, you’d rather comprise
          2. The relationship of Douglass and Lincoln exemplifies this type of compromise

          AND yet…it all led to the Civil War. Which was necessary to stop the selling human beings for profit.

          So, yes, if you look at the relationship between the two political entities involved, a compromise was reached. But that compromise was worthless in preventing violence.

          Violence was always inevitable. It started with violence toward Africans - kidnapping and slavery. The only way to end it was more violence - a bloody, vicious civil war. This is the human condition.

          • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            More blither-blather.

            You’ve gone from saying “If you want to fight, you have to be prepared to lose,” tp saying “Violence was always inevitable.”

            I guess you can always win an argument if you get to change your terms from minute to minute.

            It was mildly amusing, but I’m done watching you chase your own tail.