Community Chat

[decaf]

@Porcelain

---

@Porcelain wrote:

I agree that it's lazy thinking and writing to just generalize and say, "Oh kids these days are all too..." Take your pick: entitled, lazy, overly ambitious, rude, sensitive, politically correct, disrespectful, demanding, easy going, impatient...

You can pick any negative trait and apply it to anyone and you will probably be right. We all have these issues as well as the more positive sides of those traits, which would be our virtues.

When you single out an entire age group to label it in some way, that is always lazy and never the complete story. This also applies to any other method for categorizing people.

If you want to be treated as a unique individual and not just stereotyped according to your appearance, age, religion, ethnicity, geographic location, height, weight, haircolor, education, income level, and more...Then you are required to treat all other human beings as unique individuals as well. It works both ways or it doesn't work at all.

If you don't care, that's fine. But expect to get pushback from the people you've offended or annoyed by making unpleasant blanket assumptions about them and those they love.

---

@Porcelain  I cited reasons that have caused me to form my opinion. Believe me, I'm not happy about the path my nephew has chosen in his life. My friends would also like their offspring to make choices that would ensure a better future.

Earlier this week. I was in very long check-out line that wasn't moving  The woman behind me had just hung up her phone and she started a conversation with me about the store not having enough help. She just had a distressing call.  Her niece is married, has two children and she's the sole breadwinner in her family.  Her husband of 10 years is a stay at home dad.  She was visibly upset, she went on to explain the stay at home dad has filed for divorce.  He has a girlfriend. Now her niece is up the creek, stay at home dad hasn't had a job in 7 years. Another good example from a different family, absolute strangers to me.

Sure, people here are free to disagree with anyone they like, but aren't THEY generalizing by calling them names instead of just saying they disagree and the reasons why they do.?  Yes they are.

[Porcelain]

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@tansy wrote:

@Cakers3, keep in mind that the minimum wage back in the 60s and 70s bought a lot more.  I did know women that lived independently on those wages.

---

@tansy   True in terms of prices. 

Speaking only for myself, I worked those jobs in high school for personal expenses (and not for Cover Girl Make-Up lol) and in college to pay for college expenses and car expenses.

What I am reading here is nobody make a "negative" observation without being called "lazy".  (Not you)

I am also reading that on the one hand some posters are saying others are too generalizing yet in the next sentence accuse others of not caring for children as a generalization.

I'm reading through this thread trying to keep perpective but it sure is difficult watching some of the duo tap-dancing.

But I digress.

---

Obviously someone is subtexting their responses to my posts again. Wonder why that would be if they didn't wish to engage with me. I have to say I wish that person would make up their mind. This is not ignoring. This is what that person used to do regularly to bait arguments without taking responsibility or ownership.

I do think some posters here don't particularly care what happens to the children of frontline workers (or the frontline workers themselves) because if they did, they would have brought up the obvious and relevant issues.

All those posters have written so far is that they just want to stop seeing the Help Wanted signs. What forcing or coercing people into those empty jobs against their will would do to the lives of the people doing the jobs? Not their problem not their concern, based on what is written here.

Maybe city councils should just ban Help Wanted signs to make everyone feel better.

[Porcelain]

---

@decaf wrote:

@Porcelain

---

@Porcelain wrote:

I agree that it's lazy thinking and writing to just generalize and say, "Oh kids these days are all too..." Take your pick: entitled, lazy, overly ambitious, rude, sensitive, politically correct, disrespectful, demanding, easy going, impatient...

You can pick any negative trait and apply it to anyone and you will probably be right. We all have these issues as well as the more positive sides of those traits, which would be our virtues.

When you single out an entire age group to label it in some way, that is always lazy and never the complete story. This also applies to any other method for categorizing people.

If you want to be treated as a unique individual and not just stereotyped according to your appearance, age, religion, ethnicity, geographic location, height, weight, haircolor, education, income level, and more...Then you are required to treat all other human beings as unique individuals as well. It works both ways or it doesn't work at all.

If you don't care, that's fine. But expect to get pushback from the people you've offended or annoyed by making unpleasant blanket assumptions about them and those they love.

---

@Porcelain  I cited reasons that have caused me to form my opinion. Believe me, I'm not happy about the path my nephew has chosen in his life. My friends would also like their offspring to make choices that would ensure a better future.

Earlier this week. I was in very long check-out line that wasn't moving  The woman behind me had just hung up her phone and she started a conversation with me about the store not having enough help. She just had a distressing call.  Her niece is married, has two children and she's the sole breadwinner in her family.  Her husband of 10 years is a stay at home dad.  She was visibly upset, she went on to explain the stay at home dad has filed for divorce.  He has a girlfriend. Now her niece is up the creek, stay at home dad hasn't had a job in 7 years. Another good example from a different family, absolute strangers to me.

Sure, people here are free to disagree with anyone they like, but aren't THEY generalizing by calling them names instead of just saying they disagree and the reasons why they do. 

---

Calling an action lazy is different than calling a person lazy. If I say I did something stupid, I would not be calling myself stupid in general. Labeling an action is not labeling a person. It is not name calling. We need to be on the same page with our terms if we are going to blame each other for perceived transgressions.

[decaf]

---

---

---

@Porcelain wrote:

---

@decaf wrote:

@Porcelain

---

@Porcelain wrote:

I agree that it's lazy thinking and writing to just generalize and say, "Oh kids these days are all too..." Take your pick: entitled, lazy, overly ambitious, rude, sensitive, politically correct, disrespectful, demanding, easy going, impatient...

You can pick any negative trait and apply it to anyone and you will probably be right. We all have these issues as well as the more positive sides of those traits, which would be our virtues.

When you single out an entire age group to label it in some way, that is always lazy and never the complete story. This also applies to any other method for categorizing people.

If you want to be treated as a unique individual and not just stereotyped according to your appearance, age, religion, ethnicity, geographic location, height, weight, haircolor, education, income level, and more...Then you are required to treat all other human beings as unique individuals as well. It works both ways or it doesn't work at all.

If you don't care, that's fine. But expect to get pushback from the people you've offended or annoyed by making unpleasant blanket assumptions about them and those they love.

---

@Porcelain  I cited reasons that have caused me to form my opinion. Believe me, I'm not happy about the path my nephew has chosen in his life. My friends would also like their offspring to make choices that would ensure a better future.

Earlier this week. I was in very long check-out line that wasn't moving  The woman behind me had just hung up her phone and she started a conversation with me about the store not having enough help. She just had a distressing call.  Her niece is married, has two children and she's the sole breadwinner in her family.  Her husband of 10 years is a stay at home dad.  She was visibly upset, she went on to explain the stay at home dad has filed for divorce.  He has a girlfriend. Now her niece is up the creek, stay at home dad hasn't had a job in 7 years. Another good example from a different family, absolute strangers to me.

Sure, people here are free to disagree with anyone they like, but aren't THEY generalizing by calling them names instead of just saying they disagree and the reasons why they do. 

---

Calling an action lazy is different than calling a person lazy. If I say I did something stupid, I would not be calling myself stupid in general. Labeling an action is not labeling a person. It is not name calling. We need to be on the same page with our terms if we are going to blame each other for perceived transgressions.

@PorcelainNow that I'm understanding the term "lazy writer" and how it was used, I respectfully disagree.

The ONLY thing we're all doing here is WRITING. So calling someone a "lazy writer" was an intentional  insult.  I'm not interested in attacking others here so I'll be chececking out of this discussion now.

---

[Zernia Rose]

If multimillionaires and billionaires benefitted from a trillion dollar tax cut that increased the national debt to historic heights, billionaires paid little to no income tax, and CEOs received exceptionally large bonuses, then I will not begrudge poor and working to middle-class families receiving additional unemployment benefits, ACA coverage, mandatory minimum wages that are above the poverty line, and support for childcare. If companies, multimillionaires, and billionaires payed their fair share, then the rest of us would have significantly improved lives.

 BTW, Bezos paid less than 1% of the taxes one would expect and his company has a worker policy that expects significant turnover of workers. They will need to import workers because of the unrealistic workloads and time to complete those tasks. Companies like Walmart paid wages that were so low that workers depended on assistance for food, rent, etc.  Executves of the company realized that their wage levels needed enhancements.

[suzyQ3]

---

@Porcelain wrote:

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@tansy wrote:

@Cakers3, keep in mind that the minimum wage back in the 60s and 70s bought a lot more.  I did know women that lived independently on those wages.

---

@tansy   True in terms of prices. 

Speaking only for myself, I worked those jobs in high school for personal expenses (and not for Cover Girl Make-Up lol) and in college to pay for college expenses and car expenses.

What I am reading here is nobody make a "negative" observation without being called "lazy".  (Not you)

I am also reading that on the one hand some posters are saying others are too generalizing yet in the next sentence accuse others of not caring for children as a generalization.

I'm reading through this thread trying to keep perpective but it sure is difficult watching some of the duo tap-dancing.

But I digress.

---

Obviously someone is subtexting their responses to my posts again. Wonder why that would be if they didn't wish to engage with me. I have to say I wish that person would make up their mind. This is not ignoring. This is what that person used to do regularly to bait arguments without taking responsibility or ownership.

I do think some posters here don't particularly care what happens to the children of frontline workers (or the frontline workers themselves) because if they did, they would have brought up the obvious and relevant issues.

All those posters have written so far is that they just want to stop seeing the Help Wanted signs. What forcing or coercing people into those empty jobs against their will would do to the lives of the people doing the jobs? Not their problem not their concern, based on what is written here.

Maybe city councils should just ban Help Wanted signs to make everyone feel better.

---

Haha, @Porcelain, and here I was thinking it was directed at me. Probably both of us. I'm proud to be in such good company! 

[suzyQ3]

@decaf, for the record on my comment about lazy writers going after low-hanging fruit, I was NOT speaking of you but rather the authors of the sources that you were referring to. I thought that was clear, but apparently it was not.

[Tinkrbl44]

I've only read about half the comments here, but a few surprised me.  Certainly, no one can think we'll all snap back to "normal" in only a week or two.  

I think there are many many many variables in play when it comes to people going back to work.   Some jobs ... and companies ... no longer exist!  

I also think it depends on how you & your family were affected by Covid.  Did someone in your family or circle of friends die?  Or did this all play out and you don't even know ONE person who got covid?   Some people still think it was all fake.

People have felt afraid and unsafe for more than a year now.   It takes time to stop being fearful.  

Remember being affected by 9/11 ?      Even if you didn't know anyone who was killed that day, as Americans, we were traumatized.   

Any time you experience a profound lack of SAFETY in every day life, it can be difficult to get past that.   

Here Los Angeles is back open, but you can't always tell.  I just got back from grocery shopping and only about 20% of shoppers were without masks.  Medical offices are still wearing masks.  

It's going to take time .... and for some people ... a LOT of time.  JMO

[decaf]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

@decaf, for the record on my comment about lazy writers going after low-hanging fruit, I was NOT speaking of you but rather the authors of the sources that you were referring to. I thought that was clear, but apparently it was not.

---

@suzyQ3  Your comment wasn't clear at all, That's the reason I asked you to clarify your post and then you rudely attacked me. At that point, of course I thought you meant me.   Who wouldn't?

Also, if you read my posts, I was clear my opinion was based on circumstances in the lives of my own family and friends.  Any articles/books I read on the subject  just confirmed what I was already witnessing. 

Eta- Let's move on..

.