Jstar fishz Korwin-Mikke

[Kearn]

statistically, women will always earn less as a combined total, since they are biologically inferior to men. on an individual basis, however, women should earn the same amount for their work as men.

correct, as long as the work is being performed with the same skill by both a man and a woman

having a biological disability shouldn't affect how much you earn but should affect whether or not you are employed. i'm asthmatic so obviously i'm unable to serve in the military or as an astronaut. if they hired me and i had an asthma attack in the field and it resulted in a loss of like, a million dollar equipment, it would be entirely their fault for employing me. however, for the jobs that do employ me, my asthma shouldn't affect my pay in any way

as long as your asthma/paralysis/whateveritis does not prevent you from performing subpar work relative to your peers, correct

i support maternity leave for the sole reason that working women won't be able to physically support their child unless they have a source of income. whether this comes as social security from the government or from the workplace, it's a necessity

the problem i have with maternity leave as a mandate is you wind up with employers with narrow profit margins being forced to pay months of a woman's salary for no return. frankly it seems like this would encourage out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood (which are already getting out of control). if you're having a child you really should have the father providing a stable source of income since you're not only going to be dealing with raising the baby for years ahead but also with potential negative side effects during the pregnancy

nominally speaking a lot of mid- to high-level jobs are likely going to provide some form of maternity leave to their employees because those professions are likely going to have a lot more cashflow and much more invested in keeping skilled employees with the company for years instead of simply exchanging burgerflippers once a month

quotas and affirmative action are particularly tricky to work with. in theory, quotas will just affect the outcome, not the income.

the problem with quotas though is that often you wind up having to accept subpar candidates or overpay them to meet whatever government-imposed obligations you have or face whatever legal actions to "remedy" the situation they would bring against you

[Ad Bot]

[PhantOS]

women get pregnant for a variety of reasons, either their own fault or the fault of someone else, maybe an accident, maybe rape, maybe unplanned, maybe planned. regardless, being able to function without maternity leave is almost impossible as a single parent. the chances of mothers getting pregnant on purpose just to get benefits is pretty rare, and taking away maternity leave for the 95% of mothers who need it as a result is unfair and demonic.

it should also not be contingent on the father's earnings either, since most families have both parents working jobs at the same time, and some mothers shouldn't be forced to be in a relationship just to receive the compensation they require for them and their child to survive the first 4 months

the problem with quotas though is that often you wind up having to accept subpar candidates or overpay them to meet whatever government-imposed obligations you have or face whatever legal actions to "remedy" the situation they would bring against you

this is very rare. businesses will never choose a subpar candidate on their own will. they have the ability to decline applicants for a reason, and quotas will not force them to choose people with a lower skillset. instead, they will wait for an applicant that meets the requirements and doesn't violate the quota, and then they will choose them.
if your business is 99% white people and you need to satisfy the quota, it's not like you're going to choose the 1st non-white applicant you see. you're going to wait until an applicant who is non-white applies with the required skillset to work there. and until then, yes, you will have to turn down white applicants. at that point, it's no longer first come first serve

the quota doesn't mean 'choose black people over white' it means 'race-based stalemate breaker'

[Kearn]

the chances of mothers getting pregnant on purpose just to get benefits is pretty rare

i'm not saying it's a common practice or going to happen for that specifically, but i doubt the con of not being able to financially support and raise a child by oneself disappearing would have a positive effect on the number of children born to single mothers

and taking away maternity leave for the 95% of mothers who need it as a result is unfair and demonic.

like i said, many of the women in a situation where they desperately are in need of paid maternity leave to survive financially probably have no business having (or risking having) children in the first place

it should also not be contingent on the father's earnings either, since most families have both parents working jobs at the same time, and some mothers shouldn't be forced to be in a relationship just to receive the compensation they require for them and their child to survive the first 4 months

they had a baby. why is them being in a relationship a bad thing? it's almost certainly implied that if you're having a baby you're in a relationship. it's not only sane from a financial standpoint to have both parents involved but it allows the mother to spend as much time at home to raise her child and maintain the house as she needs without having to worry about not having any household income.

this is very rare. businesses will never choose a subpar candidate on their own will. they have the ability to decline applicants for a reason, and quotas will not force them to choose people with a lower skillset. instead, they will wait for an applicant that meets the requirements and doesn't violate the quota, and then they will choose them.

is that still not discrimination to have the law dictate which race should be chosen in a situation more equitably solved with a coinflip? it seems unreasonable to have the law dictate that one race be given preference over another.

if your business is 99% white people and you need to satisfy the quota, it's not like you're going to choose the 1st non-white applicant you see. you're going to wait until an applicant who is non-white applies with the required skillset to work there. and until then, yes, you will have to turn down white applicants. at that point, it's no longer first come first serve

i'm not saying you will, but the problem is you invite the possibility of government intervention or lawsuits by minority applicants alleging discriminatory hiring practices. it seems ridiculous to prevent a business from fulfilling a position it needs filled simply because it "needs" to have more minority employees. it's not a positive economic effect and it's certainly not going to give employers a favorable attitude towards minority applicants

[Magus]

alright everyone



last person in the argument to post a reputable source gets shot

Just pull the trigger now and save yourself the trouble.

[DestroyerOfBlocks]

who wore it better

[DestroyerOfBlocks]

holy stuff it keeps happening

[Katadeus]

When faced with stuff like this, a few things to keep in mind:
Using the word troll implies that he doesn't actually believe what he's saying, which is not true. This guy is the real thing.
Secondly, there is no way to ironically lend support or awareness, and doing anything ironically too many times tends to make it unironic.
Not to shut down all the fun here, but there is a disconnect that isn't always visible between the people going along for the meme and the people who actually share his worldview.

[pefu19]

he can also cast spells
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CGYCR4jumY

[NotBomberguy]

this man is akin to god

wait you love him? even after he saluted a group that put millions of innocent lives to death?

jews aren't innocent

[Frequency]

the absolute madman