• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

National Emergency

This is not something I commented on

LOL! You commented on it right here, bro!

Jewish Nazis huh?

Hey Benjamin, tell Herschel the Wannsee Conference is going to be held at the synagogue this year.

This place has lost it.

Liar!

or am interested in arguing for or against.

Because you refuse to be caught on the losing end of an argument, just like that time you bailed out of your "debate" that the TAM was racist. LMFAO!!
 
Now you're misquoting the misquote.

It's all so tiresome.

Edited by jsfisher: 
<snip> Reference to moderated content removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This smacks heavily of SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer Miller.

Jewish Nazis huh?

Hey Benjamin, tell Herschel the Wannsee Conference is going to be held at the synagogue this year.

This place has lost it.

Here's ^^^^ the original exchange, for people allergic to looking back. That's some mighty clever bandiage. You were making a funny. Haw haw, we get it. But you were wrong, as a number of people have shown you.





Now you're misquoting the misquote.

It's all so tiresome.

You haven't been paying attention. Stuff in quotation marks CAN mean a direct quote. It can also mean, "Lookit, I'm putting this in quotation marks because I'm paraphrasing or summarizing a conclusion I've reached." Again, while you're double-checking how to spell Wannsee, why not look up "use of quotation marks in English"? Go on, give it a try.

See? We have this function on these forums. It's the Quote button. If we want to quote someone's text, we use that, as I did above in this post. That way readers can track back to the source to make sure it's precise, not taken out of context, not altered.

What you keep insisting was a mis-quote was an accurate summary of what you attempted to do in your clever riposte. Now, you can argue that that's not the intent/meaning of the post, but then you have the problem that everyone can see just how full of crap that argument is. You included an assumed Jewish name and reference to a horrendous moment in Jewish history. We all know what you were saying and you're arguing "well, I never said those specific words". You do realize that we've all heard that **** before. "Hey, he's not racist; show me where he ever said the N word, huh? Huh? Gotcha!" (This is offered in defense of Steve King, David Duke and Donald Trump.)
 
Putting the "E" in "ISF".

According to historian Bryan Mark Rigg, an Israeli Army and United States Marine Corps veteran, up to 160,000 soldiers who were one-quarter, one-half, and even fully Jewish served in the German armed forces during World War II. This included several generals, admirals, and at least one field marshal, Erhard Milch.
Mischling.
 
I don't knock the skillset at all. It's the seasonal nature of the work that marks it as "entry level" not the potential for specialization.


Seasonal work is work that occurs at certain times of year and not others,

Entry level work is work which requires few if any skills to be done effectively.

They are entirely different concepts. Any overlap is incidental and irrelevant.

I suspect that there are far more entry level positions customarily available in the year-round employment market than in seasonal work. If for no other reason than more time is available for even the little training which might be required.
 
Last edited:
Seasonal work is work that occurs at certain times of year and not others,

Entry level work is work which requires few if any skills to be done effectively.

They are entirely different concepts. Any overlap is incidental and irrelevant.

THANK YOU FOR THIS ENLIGHTENING KNOWLEDGE.

Also, thank you for not reading my explanation of the link between them where I in no way whatsoever suggested they mean the same thing or that one should automatically regard them as equivalent to the other.
 
THANK YOU FOR THIS ENLIGHTENING KNOWLEDGE.

Also, thank you for not reading my explanation of the link between them where I in no way whatsoever suggested they mean the same thing or that one should automatically regard them as equivalent to the other.


I read your backpedalling and weaselling. It seemed obfuscated enough that a simple clarification was in order, just to make sure there wasn't any confusion.
 
[Related sidenote] Did you ever work in the fields? It's actually a very skilled job if you want to make enough money to survive. I picked pears once and it wasn't easy. But the migrant farm workers were really good at it, filled their bins in no time. I barely filled one bin in an entire day. [/sidenote]

I dunno.

I've worked the french fryer, at McDonald's. i've worked the grill and the register at McDonald's. I've worked light custodial for minimum wage at a demolition yard. I've worked temp gigs doing inventory for small businesses. I've worked as a delivery driver for an auto parts wholesaler.

I once worked a gig that was simply assembling trade association information packets, to be sent out to association members. That was a pretty sweet gig. The association did so many packets that they'd invested in an industrial-grade printer-collator-finisher machine. They'd also invested in a large workbench where the assembler could easily lay out all the different components of the packet in their respective stacks, and pull from each stack in turn to assemble a packet. The first day of that job was me figuring out how to lay out all the "ingredients" in a way that minimized extra arm motions and kept my body flowing optimally from the beginning to the end of each packet I assembled. The remaining three months of that job were me with my headphones on, grooving to music and motion.

All those jobs are characterized in part by how long it took to grasp the basic qualifications, and the relatively short range of value add between little experience and a lot of experience.

A french fryer with ten years of experience at McDonald's is probably going to be about as good at that job as it's possible to get. But ten years in, those extra years of experience aren't actually adding a lot of value to the product, over what you'd get from someone with ten hours of experience.

Compare with my current job: Site reliability engineering for enterprise development/operations. Ten hours of "experience" doesn't even count as experience. Ten months of experience at a smaller job - systems administration, application operations, etc. - might be enough to get your foot in the door as a junior SRE. Ten years on, the value I add and the compensation I'm justified in asking has progressed far beyond what a fry cook with ten years of experience could ever dream of.

If you told me that "entry level" jobs are skilled labor too, I'd laugh in your face. Not because I didn't develop skills and deepen my practice in every entry level job I ever held for more than a week. I'd laugh because I've worked those jobs, and they don't hold a candle to the kind of training and experience you need to do the kind of job I do now, and they don't have the growth potential in value add and compensation increases, of the kind of job I do now.

For sure a fruit picker gets skilled with practice. And they get paid more, too, as the number of baskets they can pick per day goes up. But anyone can show up and start picking. And even the top pickers are only going to pick so much. At the end of the day, their productivity and their profits are limited by their physical capability. This kind of physical labor is easily accessible to almost everyone. However, it's probably the least efficient use of human potential there is. I get paid more than the top fruit pickers not because I put in more physical effort, but because I've spent a decade or more mastering knowledge skills that magnify my productivity far more than perfecting the optimal pear-picking motion for my body.

For sure fruit picking is skilled labor, technically speaking. But technically correct is the worst kind of correct. Nobody wants to hear their defense attorney say, "don't worry, I'm skilled the way a fruit picker is skilled!" Nobody wants their bookkeeping done by a CPA whose CV opens with "you know how a McDonald's fry cook is doing skilled labor? Same thing with me." Nobody wants to be treated by a doctor who thinks that becoming a skilled healthcare professional is the same basic process as becoming a skilled hotel housekeeper.

There are jobs that anyone with a healthy body and a functional mind can walk into, pick up right away, and get paid for with little or no additional training. These are typically jobs that pay near the bottom of the scale, simply because "anyone" can do them, and they don't tend to become more valuable with more experience.

There are other jobs that require a lot more training and experience, and are not really open to everyone to try out. In many careers, you'll spend years and money just to qualify for consideration, and then years more working your way up to something really worthwhile.

Your own anecdote is illustrative. You could have stuck around and become a skilled fruit-picker. Instead, you became a Nurse. I bet you believe that mastering nursing has been a much more productive use of your potential than mastering fruit-picking ever would have been. Even though it means you will never pick the perfect pear.
 
Nobody wants to hear their defense attorney say, "don't worry, I'm skilled the way a fruit picker is skilled!" Nobody wants their bookkeeping done by a CPA whose CV opens with "you know how a McDonald's fry cook is doing skilled labor? Same thing with me." Nobody wants to be treated by a doctor who thinks that becoming a skilled healthcare professional is the same basic process as becoming a skilled hotel housekeeper.
These examples were a pretty effective argument to me, and I was swayed by the opposite side when it was first expressed.
 
These examples were a pretty effective argument to me, and I was swayed by the opposite side when it was first expressed.

On the other hand, it muddies the waters by reducing everything to a skilled/unskilled paradigm. Where these terms are part of the vernacular, they are accompanied by quite a few others, as well. "Professional trades", "administrative/clerical workers", and "academics/educators" come to mind, for example.

A laborer can be unskilled, sure. I don't think its fair to say a single task or trade exists where skill is not a factor, so "unskilled labor" as a label for certain types of work seems arbitrary. A more honest label might be "disrespected labor."

Because it seems like it's a lot of the trades that don't have high social prestige. Sanitation workers is a good example. I marvel at how these giant trucks maneuver through streets with cars parked bumper to bumper on both sides in some neighborhoods. That's without even going into the meticulous details of operating the physical/reclamation plant once all the garbage is collected.

Take away curbside garbage collection. Tell me how much you'd be willing to pay not to have to separate your garbage into 20 different kinds and haul it to the dump every week (imagine the lines!). We pay pennies on average per month for it. People apparently imagine the operation that takes place after the garbage leaves their curb as the mythical "landfill" that is apparently some massive hole in the ground filled with garbage.

No, it takes skill to keep things from going completely to ****. Even the guys flinging the bags. That's athletic prowess on display for hours a day. Put the average American on that job and I will take odds they are dead of a heart attack before the first paycheck. As a result, just like our food (to bring the point back to agricultural labor) coming from store shelves, all we see is a truck roll down the street and the bags go in. That's it right? The trash goes into a +5 bag of holding and the food comes out on pallets from those transdimensional doors near the back of the store, right?
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, it muddies the waters by reducing everything to a skilled/unskilled paradigm. Where these terms are part of the vernacular, they are accompanied by quite a few others, as well. "Professional trades", "administrative/clerical workers", and "academics/educators" come to mind, for example.

A laborer can be unskilled, sure. I don't think its fair to say a single task or trade exists where skill is not a factor, so "unskilled labor" as a label for certain types of work seems arbitrary. A more honest label might be "disrespected labor."

Because it seems like it's a lot of the trades that don't have high social prestige. Sanitation workers is a good example. I marvel at how these giant trucks maneuver through streets with cars parked bumper to bumper on both sides in some neighborhoods. That's without even going into the meticulous details of operating the physical/reclamation plant once all the garbage is collected.

Take away curbside garbage collection. Tell me how much you'd be willing to pay not to have to separate your garbage into 20 different kinds and haul it to the dump every week (imagine the lines!). We pay pennies on average per month for it. People apparently imagine the operation that takes place after the garbage leaves their curb as the mythical "landfill" that is apparently some massive hole in the ground filled with garbage.

No, it takes skill to keep things from going completely to ****. Even the guys flinging the bags. That's athletic prowess on display for hours a day. Put the average American on that job and I will take odds they are dead of a heart attack before the first paycheck. As a result, just like our food (to bring the point back to agricultural labor) coming from store shelves, all we see is a truck roll down the street and the bags go in. That's it right? The trash goes into a +5 bag of holding and the food comes out on pallets from those transdimensional doors near the back of the store, right?

I don't think the skilled/unskilled binary is essential or necessary to the quote that was convincing to me. Rather, I understood it looking at skill on a continuum, but still giving certain tasks or jobs more skill than others.

I think we can all agree that many jobs that are called unskilled actually require skill, and that some jobs require vastly more skill than others.
 
You were clearly stating that Miller couldn't be a fascist-right-wing-crazy-nationalist-bigot... because he's Jewish.
He wasn't "clearly" stating anything. Trump supporters are rarely making an actual case. Instead they toss off some innuendo that allows them to respond with comments that may sound like zingers but which fall apart when you try to pinpoint what they mean. "Nazis and Jews didn't get along, just sayin'." If they claim that Jews can never be fascists, then you can probably trot out a reasonable counterexample. But if you make a trivial dig or simply post an emoji you have no logic or evidence that can be evaluated.

For years I have resisted conflating racism and fear of illegal immigration. But it gets difficult when conservatives are triggered by hearing people speak Spanish. A U.S. citizen can be held at an immigrant detention facility, but it's a teenager's fault because he was riding in a car with an illegal immigrant (his brother). If we're telling U.S. citizens to ditch their families or else risk being swept up in a raid ... that sounds like if you're a "good" person of Mexican descent you should avoid hanging out with "bad" people of Mexican descent or risk being imprisoned for no cause.

Meanwhile a white person would never be at risk of that. You can't be a victim of anti-immigrant hysteria unless you're Latino*. So the remedy is, don't be Latino. And yes, this sounds like racism.

*In the current discussion. Being of Asian or Irish descent has spurred suspicion and bigotry in other eras.
 
Boomers don't think being a "Trump supporter" has any bearing on whether or not you support Trump. Lead poisoning much?
 
He wasn't "clearly" stating anything. Trump supporters are rarely making an actual case. Instead they toss off some innuendo that allows them to respond with comments that may sound like zingers but which fall apart when you try to pinpoint what they mean. "Nazis and Jews didn't get along, just sayin'." If they claim that Jews can never be fascists, then you can probably trot out a reasonable counterexample. But if you make a trivial dig or simply post an emoji you have no logic or evidence that can be evaluated.
Thanks for articulating this, I've been thinking this loosely and in an ill-formed manner, you stated it well.
 

Back
Top Bottom