Tenured professors who make over $150k a year live in a very special world, to be fair.
Joe Rogan
- Thread starter Ecstasio
- Start date
Which assumes that some third party can determine the value a worker brings to a company and what he/she should be paid to compensate for it.
How would you react if a United player went on the JRE?
Anyone migrated from someone who you were introduced to via Joe Rogan.
I’ve ended up listening to loads of Tim Dillon he matches my exact type of humour
I’ve ended up listening to loads of Tim Dillon he matches my exact type of humour
Disappointed. But then United players are just footballers, and footballers do and say a lot of stupid things. We still sing songs about Giggs, and he was a wife-beating scumbag.
Lex for me. I don't listen to him all that much to be honest but I like the guy.
Is this the best and appropriate reply to musks tweet that you can think of?
Exploit used in this way simply means the worker produces more profit than he is paid. So basically any properly functioning capitalist business exploits their workers. It could be a plumber who hires an apprentice and pays him £50 but charges him out for £100, or it could be a law firm who pays a lawyer £100 an hour but charges him out for £200 an hour.
@Kinsella what I meant by value is profit, sorry for the confusion.
One of, if not the best podcasts
Sounds like you don't know what exploitation means
Honest question: Does he give out a pamphlet or something with this talking point for his followers to use when he's criticized? I have a friend who may be his lone female fan, and she always get super pissed when I point out all of the offensive and incorrect things he's said. She always asks for proof and if i've listened to his stuff. Of course when I supply proof, she deflects.
I just finished reading a thread on Reddit where his defenders were going for the same "but have you listened to his whole catalogue?" defense. It's bizarre.
But have you read all of fergieisold posts on redcafe?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm looking forward to the Peterson episode.
The point I'm making is people are too polarised one way or the other. Petersons done plenty of great stuff...and clearly stuff that hasn't stood up to proper debate.
I'm far from an expert, but it's not my definition, it's Marx's. Maybe makes more sense coming from someone who knows what he's talking about.
This argument makes no sense, I don't understand why anyone uses it. Supposedly doing some 'great stuff' for a few years doesn't absolve anyone from spouting nonsense for ages.
What argument? It’s the reality. He’s clearly done both good and bad stuff. I’m really struggling to see why that’s a problem.
Anyone can be right about a few things, it doesn't negate them talking complete and utter shite about everything else. Nobody has to take into account some basic thing that Peterson may have said that is common consensus when assessing him.
And my response still applies - Marx proceeds on the assumption that a third party can determine the profit a worker brings to a company and what he/she should be paid to compensate for it
His work is built on many such false assumptions.
You are wasting your time mate.
Hitler painted some great German Shepherds.
Godwin's Law...I knew we'd get there.
Never fails. Surprised it took this long 
I've only posted in the last few pages so...to be fair it might've already happened.
And given the tone of the thread I wouldn't be surprised.
And given the tone of the thread I wouldn't be surprised.
De does not.
Last edited:
Is there anything more annoying than people going on about Godwin's law?
I guess Hitler was more annoying, but that's about it.
I guess Hitler was more annoying, but that's about it.
People going on about how much they love Joe Rogan?
The Holocaust?
You don't think much before typing them posts do you?
Trust me that was well thought out. Heck I could have gone with the Gestapo, SS, lots of things. The joke would still work. Holocaust being extreme though gave it added punch.
Is this the dawn of Gambit's Law?
The at some point during an internet conversation Gambit will chime in with something unfunny or offensive in the belief he's being hilarious and the only person it amuses is himself law.
How much Marx have you read?
He*
There is no assumption of any third party doing anything, I have no idea why you would say that.
I've read the Communist Manifesto a number of times (I've got a copy on the bookshelf in front of me), but I haven't completed Das Kapital.
Last edited:
I'm looking forward to the Peterson appearance.
