The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.
Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?
Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the façade of something high. And that something is ideology.— excerpted from Vaclav Havel, “The Power of the Powerless.”
For those who haven’t read it, Havel’s essay is a masterpiece, comparable in its effect and significance to Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.” Havel was a playwright of some renown in the 1960s and his outspoken support of freedom led to multiple arrests by the communist government in Czechoslovakia. After his imprisonment in 1978, the essay was published and helped spark a tide of dissidence across many former Soviet Union client states, run by communist party leadership approved governments. Havel’s essay helped give breath to the independence movement in many of the countries that would later arise in the wake of the USSR’s collapse.
I was stunned at the prescient applicability of Havel’s essay to the modern United States. Instead of posting signs from the central committee, the American version of the greengrocer has to make sure her Facebook page, Twitter bio, and social media history displays the proper slogans. And they need to “just wear the mask.”
And get the vaccine. And admit their whiteness and white privilege is what’s responsible for… well, everything that’s wrong in the country. And not be a climate change “denier.” Or a QAnon “conspiracy theorist” (whatever the f*** that is).
Or, literally, a national socialist Nazi.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
One of the other great underlying themes of Havel’s essay is the why of such ridiculous slogans beyond the social(ist) signe de vertu.
We have seen that the real meaning of the greengrocer’s slogan has nothing to do with what the text of the slogan actually says. Even so, this real meaning is quite clear and generally comprehensible because the code is so familiar: the greengrocer declares his loyalty (and he can do no other if his declaration is to be accepted) in the only way the regime is capable of hearing; that is, by accepting the prescribed ritual, by accepting appearances as reality, by accepting the given rules of the game. In doing so, however, he has himself become a player in the game, thus making it possible for the game to go on, for it to exist in the first place.
If ideology was originally a bridge between the system and the individual as an individual, then the moment he steps on to this bridge it becomes at the same time a bridge between the system and the individual as a component of the system. That is, if ideology originally facilitated (by acting outwardly) the constitution of power by serving as a psychological excuse, then from the moment that excuse is accepted, it constitutes power inwardly, becoming an active component of that power. It begins to function as the principal instrument of ritual communication within the system of power.
The whole power structure… could not exist at all if there were not a certain metaphysical order binding all its components together, interconnecting them and subordinating them to a uniform method of accountability, supplying the combined operation of all these components with rules of the game, that is, with certain regulations, limitations, and legalities. This metaphysical order is fundamental to, and standard throughout, the entire power structure; it integrates its communication system and makes possible the internal exchange and transfer of information and instructions. It is rather like a collection of traffic signals and directional signs, giving the process shape and structure. This metaphysical order guarantees the inner coherence of the totalitarian power structure. It is the glue holding it together, its binding principle, the instrument of its discipline. Without this glue the structure as a totalitarian structure would vanish; it would disintegrate into individual atoms chaotically colliding with one another in their unregulated particular interests and inclinations. The entire pyramid of totalitarian power, deprived of the element that binds it together, would collapse in upon itself, as it were, in a kind of material implosion.
As the interpretation of reality by the power structure, ideology is always subordinated ultimately to the interests of the structure. Therefore, it has a natural tendency to disengage itself from reality, to create a world of appearances, to become ritual. In societies where there is public competition for power and therefore public control of that power, there also exists quite naturally public control of the way that power legitimates itself ideologically. Consequently, in such conditions there are always certain correctives that effectively prevent ideology from abandoning reality altogether. Under totalitarianism, however, these correctives disappear, and thus there is nothing to prevent ideology from becoming more and more removed from reality, gradually turning into what it has already become in the post-totalitarian system: a world of appearances, a mere ritual, a formalized language deprived of semantic contact with reality and transformed into a system of ritual signs that replace reality with pseudo-reality. (Emphasis added)
— Vaclav Havel, “The Power of the Powerless, V“
The modern Progressive-Statist disconnect from reality is stunning. I don’t really mean this as an insult, either. It’s just the only way I can describe my observations of Reality as distinct from what the Cathedra Media and Government tell us we must believe – and say – in public. A friend of mine once observed that putting the term “politically” in front of “correct” was a way of signaling the opposite. In other words, it used to be that there were no flavors of correct; something either was or wasn’t correct. “Politically correct” is something that is actually INcorrect, but because of the social pressure extended from the totalitarian control, that truth can no longer be spoken and instead the “politically correct” phrase must be uttered instead. At least the sham claim that the political Left was merely looking for “acceptance” or “equality before the law” has been revealed as such. I think (broadly speaking) many people viewed the “woke” movement as more oddball curiosity than anything to be taken too seriously. Then the Progressive shibboleths included the Impossible Gender Fraud (IGF): You – a member of the animal kingdom, of the chordate phylum, of the class mammalia; yes, you – unlike every other living creature in all that hierarchy – your biological sex is actually all in your head, mmkay? #IFLoveScience! Tamika Brents got her skull fractured and her orbital broken in 7 places on the Altar of Statist Absurdity by Fallon Fox, a woman who was once a man. Girls high school athletic records are being demolished by post-pubescent males who now “identify” as being dominant in female sports. I did some of the earliest litigation on this issue and I’ve watched slack-jawed as major sports regulatory bodies (looking at you IOC) caved and abandoned even their last tenuous dock-lines to Reality. Now gender is just what a child or the mentally ill want to believe.
But the matter for crucial inquiry (for me, anyway) is the “why” of such a posture. I think Havel’s essay does as good a job as any at identifying a big part of the “Why.” Why must the Woke Brigades insist on forcing others to bend the knee? Why isn’t it enough to have acceptance… why must they have obeisance to their unReality? And by this “why” I want to be precise: I’m not talking about the psychological needs and drives of the Modern Progressive that compels them to control others through force of law. The Progs are not unique in this – the Right certainly has its Drug War and bedroom issues – but those “whys” are matters of motivation of compulsion. I’m talking about the “why” in a more practical sense: why the public struggle sessions? Why the need for people to profess the catechisms? What purpose does it serve? Havel has a brilliant answer.
Why in fact did our greengrocer have to put his loyalty on display in the shop window? Had he not already displayed it sufficiently in various internal or semipublic ways? At trade union meetings, after all, he had always voted as he should. He had always taken part in various competitions. He voted in elections like a good citizen. He had even signed the “antiCharter.” Why, on top of all that, should he have to declare his loyalty publicly? After all, the people who walk past his window will certainly not stop to read that, in the greengrocer’s opinion, the workers of the world ought to unite. The fact of the matter is, they don’t read the slogan at all, and it can be fairly assumed they don’t even see it. If you were to ask a woman who had stopped in front of his shop what she saw in the window, she could certainly tell whether or not they had tomatoes today, but it is highly unlikely that she noticed the slogan at all, let alone what it said.
It seems senseless to require the greengrocer to declare his loyalty publicly. But it makes sense nevertheless. People ignore his slogan, but they do so because such slogans are also found in other shop windows, on lampposts, bulletin boards, in apartment windows, and on buildings; they are everywhere, in fact. They form part of the panorama of everyday life. Of course, while they ignore the details, people are very aware of that panorama as a whole. And what else is the greengrocer’s slogan but a small component in that huge backdrop to daily life?
The greengrocer had to put the slogan in his window, therefore, not in the hope that someone might read it or be persuaded by it, but to contribute, along with thousands of other slogans, to the panorama that everyone is very much aware of. This panorama, of course, has a subliminal meaning as well: it reminds people where they are living and what is expected of them. It tells them what everyone else is doing, and indicates to them what they must do as well, if they don’t want to be excluded, to fall into isolation, alienate themselves from society, break the rules of the game, and risk the loss of their peace and tranquility and security.
The woman who ignored the greengrocer’s slogan may well have hung a similar slogan just an hour before in the corridor of the office where she works. She did it more or less without thinking, just as our greengrocer did, and she could do so precisely because she was doing it against the background of the general panorama and with some awareness of it, that is, against the background of the panorama of which the greengrocer’s shop window forms a part. When the greengrocer visits her office, he will not notice her slogan either, just as she failed to notice his. Nevertheless, their slogans are mutually dependent: both were displayed with some awareness of the general panorama and, we might say, under its diktat. Both, however, assist in the creation of that panorama, and therefore they assist in the creation of that diktat as well. The greengrocer and the office worker have both adapted to the conditions in which they live, but in doing so, they help to create those conditions. They do what is done, what is to be done, what must be done, but at the same time-by that very token-they confirm that it must be done in fact. They conform to a particular requirement and in so doing they themselves perpetuate that requirement. Metaphysically speaking, without the greengrocer’s slogan the office worker’s slogan could not exist, and vice versa. Each proposes to the other that something be repeated and each accepts the other’s proposal. Their mutual indifference to each other’s slogans is only an illusion: in reality, by exhibiting their slogans, each compels the other to accept the rules of the game and to confirm thereby the power that requires the slogans in the first place. Quite simply, each helps the other to be obedient. Both are objects in a system of control, but at the same time they are its subjects as well. They are both victims of the system and its instruments.
— Vaclav Havel, “The Power of the Powerless, VI“
The final paragraph directly above is for me the kill-shot of Havel’s essay.
Just Wear the Mask, Citizen. Don’t you care about grandma?!
Just Bake the Cake, Citizen. Do you hate The Gayz??
Boys Are Girls if they want to be!! (As long as they take some hormones and we ignore the decade of puberty when almost all male mammals grow larger, get stronger, build greater bone density, more red blood cell O2 carrying capacity, develop stronger sinews, thicker muscles, etc., than their female counterparts.)
The need for compliance is a HUGE part of the process of taking, establishing, and maintaining control; it’s how the culture wars are won.
When I was a kid, detention was still a pretty common punishment in school. It was also quite common (either at detention or some other time during the school day) for students to be punished by having to write 500 times on the blackboard or on a piece of paper: “I will not talk/laugh/fart/(insert other stupid thing) in class and disturb others.” It always seemed like the most monotonous – and idiotic task – to have to complete as a punishment. And yet, I look back on it now as an adult and I start to see other threads…
I’ve read tons of self-help books. Every good one talks about writing out goals as helping to bring about their successful manifestation. I’ve also read tons of military history books, including a number of POW stories. In every one, regardless of the culture, forcing prisoners to write or speak out the central tenets of the torturer seems to be a critical point of the contest of wills that is involved. Which has always seemed a bit odd to me. Did anyone really think that any of the American pilots in the Hanoi Hilton who were forced to write confessions to war crimes really believed it? We’ve all seen Al-Q’aeda videos with this same process played out where the broken victim mutters the necessary shibboleths. China occasionally still has these today when a dissident bookseller in Hong Kong disappears for weeks, then suddenly pops up on CCTV to tell the Chinese people he’s sorry for his crimes against them. Ditto North Korea. Everyone watching knows the victim is not there of their own free will, and yet, it serves a purpose.
Havel gives what I think is the most complete explanation of the necessity – the why – of the totalitarians’ quest for dominance over what can be said – over the cultural narrative. I note that as a matter of behavior modification, there really is something peculiar to human beings that writing things down – that speaking them aloud – helps bring them into existence. It is almost magickal – and the people who want to tell you what can be said, and what can be done, in public are not going to stop there. They can’t. They have to control what’s said privately, too. It’s why they always go after control of education – they know that they may not be able to break adults who are too far gone already, so they set about making sure your kids write down the catechisms. Earth Day. Juneteenth. Climate Crisis!!
From the subtle to the sledgehammer, it never stops and it never will.
Now, this may seem like a grim, hopeless essay, but I feel just the opposite. To know the why of something, to understand the engineering of a system, how the whole thing works together, is how one begins to find where the monkey wrench will be most effective in stopping it, in dismantling it. I’ll leave those thoughts for the next attempt.
And get the vaccine. And admit their whiteness and white privilege i – well vaccines should be reserved for POCs so you should not be able to both get the vaccine and admit whitness.
Also I am trying to get the vaccine, I am on the waiting list, I was just not willing to drive 12 hours for it.
It takes that long to get out of Bucharest? That’s a lot of traffic.
my appointment was 213 kilometers from Bucharest. I had to go there and back for the first does, there and back for the second. In total it was 12ish hours of driving.
But traffic in Bucharest is hell. That is why I avoid driving. By some metrics it is top 5 most congested in the world. Certainly the most in the EU
213 kilometers….that is like, 3000 ft?
you should try a career in comedy
I was looking up the countries still on Imperial system, I knew it was 3 but couldn’t remember which were the other 2 (Liberia and Myanmar). Anyway, the article had an interesting bit:
“Then again, some products are persistently imperially measured around the world, irrespective of the country. Jeans sizes measuring waist and length separately really are just inches, and piping and screen sizes are also referred to in inches almost everywhere.”
So how do you weird metric people know what jeans to buy?
try them on, the only way to be sure your ass looks great in them
also in Romania stuff like pipe diameter is measured sometimes in a unit called țol which is incidentally 2.54 cm
Soooo… an inch. Do you tell your girlfriend that it’s “really tol… many tol?”
it is not nice to rub my lack of skill in acquiring a girlfriend in my face you know
A romanian shitlord like you? I don’t believe it, Pie. And my recollection is that Romania has some absolute smokeshows.
Romania does. I just don’t get any.
You need to suggest a government program to your local overlords that allows you to get some.
I am a supporter of redistributing pussy from those who have to much of it
That’s some serious socialist shit right there.
But it was a trick answer – there’s no such thing as too much pussy, Pie!
Only babushka available this month, tovarich. Leave it or take it.
Okay, I larfed at that one, CS.
I can never tell when you’re having a laugh.
I am serious. It comes in Romanian from the German Zoll and a several things that have to do with tools or mechanical things come from German into Romanian
2.54 cm = 1 inch.
no, 2.54 cm = 1 Zoll
Zoll, German unit of length, 1⁄12 of a Fuß, similar to the Imperial Inch.
This part of the thread is starting to feel a little like groundhog day
Fuß is incidentally similar to foot?
i don’t know i aint german
It just warms my heart that Romania uses SAE deep down.
Just take the train.
The modern Progressive-Statist disconnect from reality is stunning. I don’t really mean this as an insult, either. It’s just the only way I can describe my observations of Reality as distinct from what the Cathedra Media and Government tell us we must believe – are you friends with Michael Malice? Case he says rather similar things
Why must the Woke Brigades insist on forcing others to bend the knee? – everyone has their kink
My boss has a pretty good idea that we are poles apart on social and political issues. Our diversity and inclusion training came up in one of our one-on-one meetings, and she hinted that she thought I probably disagreed with it. I told her not to worry, I would attend and not disrupt; I told her “You pay me a lot of money to keep my mouth shut.” She was taken aback, but I think she got the hint.
And that’s the bottom line for me. Plus, the knowledge that even if I am completely open about my views, it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference. The people who make these decisions, including our board chair and VP of HR, are completely bought in. So, all downside, no upside. I’ll attend, eat my sandwich, tick the box, and keep my mouth shut.
The day is coming, though, when nobody will be paying me to keep my mouth shut. I can point to it on a calendar. Of course, that might also be the day I leave this country.
how many poles work in your workplace ?
“You pay me a lot of money to keep my mouth shut.” – but a little more wound not hurt
I was half-expecting her to ask “What do you really think, though?” or somesuch. My response would have been “There’s nothing I can say that will make a difference, so I prefer not to say anything.” I made her uncomfortable enough with my first answer, though, so we dropped it and moved on.
I’m not happy about it, but I am working to a plan here, and that plan does not include a stint of unemployment followed by some kind of job that will likely pay less and be less enjoyable. If pressed, I will say “I don’t want to take the chance that if I tell you exactly what I think about [insert topic here], I will lose my job. When it comes to legal issues, I will always tell you what I think.”
On the bright side, I just learned today that I will be subpoenaed to testify in one of our malpractice cases. I have been testified under oath twice; neither time was the other side happy with the results. I’m actually looking forward to it. I think opposing counsel thinks that “making me testify” will be a big win. I’m an arrogant bastard, and I plan to show them that once the depo starts, they can’t control what I say, and they won’t like what I say, not one bit. By the time I’m done, I think their plan for their major claim will be smoking rubble.
them are bold words but good luck
You can’t win unless you can put something in evidence.
You can’t put something in evidence if its privileged.
Almost everything they need to prove their claim is privileged. Which I will explain at great length and mind-numbing detail. I plan to spend at least 15 minutes talking about what I will and won’t testify about, because a lot of what I know is privileged. I have three privileges to play with, which overlap in interesting ways. What they really need is mostly covered by a combination of two privileges, but its two (maybe three) different combinations. Even if they burn through one, they will run smack into another.
This is what we lawyers call “fun”. For extra fun, opposing counsel is known to have a short fuse. I plan to light it every chance I get.
You can’t win unless you can put something in evidence. – this is not the spirit of the times
Seems like a really bad move to depose GC. Unless they’re just trying to get you to nuisance settle, which is a damn risky move, it’s a waste of time.
Right now, this case is one prolonged dogfight over privileges. I shudder to think what my legal bills are so far. This is a depo of “the person most knowledgable” about what we have in various buckets of information that is privileged, so that would be me.
Our counsel is actually proposing it; opposing counsel has threatened to subpoena me, so in a way we are calling their bluff. It will be a combo “fact witness” testimony about what we do that qualifies for the privileges, and sub rosa “expert witness” testimony about why it qualifies. The combo should mostly shut down discovery, either at the trial court level or on appeal, and we will appeal immediately if we don’t get the trial court rulings we want. The whole thing should be a very prolonged process, which works for me; I’m always in favor of dragging out lawsuits where we are the defendants.
And per the prophesy, only the lawyers make out.
only the lawyers make out
This why we pay our counsel fixed fee whenever possible (not usually possible in litigation). It’s not a panacea, but at least it addresses the need for some semblance of efficiency and takes away the incentive to do barely competent work in order to get more hours (granted that only works so many times before the firm starts having to eat substantial costs)
only the lawyers make out
Hawt! especially if they both look like Kim Wexler (of Saul Goodman fame)
You’re white, therefore privileged, therefore shut up and pay me.
The one time I was slated to be deposed, our company counsel said a) start everything with “to the best of my knowledge” and b) try to make as many answers “I don’t remember shit”.
I never got my time to shine though because the legal issue was settled before they worked their way down to my lowly ass.
I’ve actually enjoyed the deps I’ve been subjected to. If I can’t make opposing counsel scream at me within the first thirty minutes, I feel like I’ve failed.
I have not yet failed.
Best moment: I was being deposed in a wrongful termination suit (I was plaintiff). Defense counsel asked, “Did you think that (CEO) had poor business acumen?”
“Yes.”
“This is a man with decades of experience and an MBA from Wharton. What made you come to that conclusion?”
“When he blew up the XXX deal that would have brought $10MM into the company, and our lawyer said that it was the single stupidest business decision he’d ever seen. Oh wait, that lawyer was you.”
Just Wear the Mask, Citizen. Don’t you care about grandma?! – your grandma or mine?
ALL GRANDMA LIVES MATTER!!!, Pie.
Okay, upon re-read, I’ll apologize for the typos. I don’t know how I missed so many. Sorry about that.
Also, I know the pull-quotes are too long. This was largely me trying to force you to read Havel’s piece.
I think it’s singularly good. He nailed the commie-statist’s need to control the narrative and why that is.
I like my kink theorem better
‘Twas a good read.
Good stuff, Ozy. I’m familiar with the essay, but you bridged it nicely to the current situation.
I couldn’t believe when I was re-reading it how a propos it was to present-day US. It kinda gut-punched me at first. I kept thinking: this was written from behind the Iron Curtain! But his observations and explanations are so well-grounded, so perfectly encapsulate the zeitgeist, that I put it in the same category as Bastiat’s essay. Bastiat’s glazier is the economic version of Havel’s greengrocer.
Damn it, I’m out of mints.
Sorta regretting those garlicky green beans right now.
I think people around you should be regretting them not you. If you still have garlic have everyone eat some
That’s why bananas are the best: taste the same coming up as they do going down.
This puts my in mind of the National Recovery Administration and similar New Deal propaganda. There were NRA signs many store fronts as people were happy to support an organization that stripped them of their rights and extended the Depression.
That poster put you in mind of any other… ahem… organization that used a rampant eagle, Drake? Or is that just my jaundiced eye?
I may get one of those, just because everyone who sees “NRA” will think its the wrong NRA.
WE DO OUR PART
I’m Helping!
https://www.memesmonkey.com/topic/im+helping#&gid=1&pid=5
FDR made no secret of his admiration for Mussolini and thought that Austrian guy had some good ideas too.
No. The NRA poster is red, white and blue, not red, white and black. Totally different.
The National Recovery Administration (NRA) was a prime agency established by U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) in 1933. The goal of the administration was to eliminate “cut throat competition” by bringing industry, labor, and government together to create codes of “fair practices” and set prices.
That sounds like something but I just can’t put my finger on it.
Thanks, Ozy, for an uplifting(?) lunch break, and I will be reading Havel’s entire piece shortly. IIRC, Havel was a huge fan of Zappa; I think this is appropriate.
I’m a fan of Zappa the Man, moreso than his music. I just haven’t listened to much of his stuff, but I love Zappa’s interview about his philosophy of guitar soloing. Zappa’s underappreciated by the broader public, but that’s probably (a) as it should be, and (b) not by accident.
I never quite got Zappa. It seemed to me like he was playing for other musicians, and kind of overthinking it; I’m totally unsurprised he has a philosophy of guitar soloing. Its been a very long time since I listened to his stuff, though.
My recollection of the clip is that he’s essentially the anti-Roger Waters. When it comes to solos, Zappa believes that they should be truly extemporaneous every time, vice a note for note replay of what was originally recorded. I can see the relative merits of both positions, but I dig Zappa’s condescension of guys who play the same solo every single time, yet act like they’re “ripping” – when they’re just playing the same thing they’ve memorized over and over again.
Been a long time for me, too.
You have just decided Old Guy Music for Saturday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmcYTShN4Fk&ab_channel=EagleRock
I’ve used that one. Man I love that song.
It’s probably my favorite Zappa song. This live version is amazing. And what Ozy said about soloing is in full effect.
“I’m a fan of Zappa the Man, moreso than his music. ”
Me too. A cleaned up Frank in a suit and tie giving hell to Tipper Fucking Gore and the PMRC was a thing of beauty.
I have the same feeling about David Lee Roth. Didn’t care much about his singing, but the man had a lust for life.
John Denver was there?! I don’t remember that. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VgSjjD6rRu4
I have noticed that my friends who found Zappa as youth were utterly taken in by his non-conformance (musically speaking) and the sense of liberation they found in it. I didn’t come to appreciate Zappa until much later in life, as relatively speaking my youth wasn’t as constrained as theirs.
Interesting observation, JI – I was extremely “constrained” through HS (went off the deep end a few years later, but that is another story) and that sense of liberation (and his contempt for formal schooling) was very palpable to repressed teenage me. I came to appreciate his music in addition to his attitude much later in life.
It’s debatable how closely linked BLM and the Dems are, but the BLM signs in shop (and home) windows is still a thing in some quarters.
Then there are “We heart immigrants” and “Love Trumps Hate” and on and on.
We aren’t at the stage where one MUST demonstrate one’s loyalty to the cause – yet. But it seems to me like we’re about halfway there.
We aren’t at the stage where one MUST demonstrate one’s loyalty to the cause – yet. But it seems to me like we’re about halfway there.
Maybe more than halfway. Our DEI Council gave a presentation two weeks ago on how to add preferred pronouns to our Slack identities (a few had already done so). Of course this is entirely optional. On the bright side, I have yet to see widespread adoption and do not expect to. And seeing this, management will realize that the vocal wokesters are a very small segment of the staff and will commence rolling back some of the bullshit. HAHAHAHAHAH I crack me up.
At our first D & I training session, there was the smug statement that if you really cared, you would introduce yourself with your pronouns. Nearly everybody did; I didn’t. I’m going to have to be asked directly, with threat of consequence, before I add it to my email. I doubt it will happen; I don’t think anybody really wants to push me too far. If it does, I’m tempted to say my pronouns are “ho/hum”.
“If you really cared,…“
I don’t.
Or use Westernsloper’s dick/balls
sloper’s are detachable?
+1 King Missile
I had the same type of response meeting the head of D&I after her “promotion”. Before this promotion she was a great engineer. She indicated how this program will help us get the best and brightest new hires as well as become more productive and innovative.
My question after the presentation was; “since we are a business driven by metrics, what are the baseline goals and assumptions for improved productivity, greater innovation, and recruiting.” “How will success be measured? ”
The answer was reluctantly that “We haven’t defined those yet, but industry’s who have adopted these types of programs saw significant improvements in all of these areas.”
So afterwards in private she all but admitted that there will not be any goals or results expected.
“We haven’t defined those yet, but industry’s who have adopted these types of programs saw significant improvements in all of these areas.”
Pretty sure that’s complete bullshit.
The goals are simple and insane. 60% plus female in all positions all the way up the chain. 50% plus BIPOC all the way up the chain. Out queer people at every level of the chain.
Until that happens, there will be “room to grow”. If that were to ever happen by freak occurrence, the goalposts would shift.
Prof. Plum doesn’t get to tell Miss Scarlett how to talk about him when she’s talking to Col. Mustard.
Second-person pronouns are a different story; when I’m speaking to you, the proper pronoun is Du; when you’re speaking to me, it’s Ihre Hoheit.
You cant insist on being addressed as ‘Your Majesty’?
Me/You
It really trips people out.
Slightly different thing, but there were stories during the rioting last year of people posting signs in their windows like “Black owned business, please spare us”. It didn’t seem to.
It didn’t seem to.
Good. Shame their business got trashed, but it beats ethnic targetting, so only businesses owned by the wrong people get trashed.
Yeah I agree. It’s a pretty horrendous development. Though imagine if it had worked – watching your neighbours sweeping up the damage you’d been spared. Do the people who write these signs think businesses that can’t make the same claim deserve what they get?
I doubt it. I mean, it’s possible, but my supposition is that the black-owned businesses (like ALL business owners) don’t want their property destroyed. What’s telling is that they seem to be naive or brainwashed enough to believe that the destruction was actually about skin color. They still don’t get it.
If you thought spending a couple bucks putting a sign up would save your business, wouldn’t you put a sign up?
The really telling part when I biked past the damage in Cleveland was that the empty storefronts were all spared.
Yes, that’s why I responded to Charlie’s last question the way I did.
(I think you and I agree here, Neph.)
I was travelling in Croatia shortly after the war there. Driving down one suburban style street it was a mix of nice houses on some lots and rubble on others. I’m guessing the rubble belonged to Serbs. I can’t figure out why so many are trying to push the US in that direction.
I can’t figure out why so many are trying to push the US in that direction.
Because they are vengeful and want to punish those who they see as their oppressors. Marxism is cancer exactly because it sows these seeds.
Don’t be too quick to blame Marxism for what is clearly human nature. The example of the Balkans ought to be most enlightening in that regard.
I’m pretty sure the Balkans involved a whole lot of socialism, too, JI. I was off the coast in ’95 when the UN enclaves fell and my recollection seems pretty good that a whole LOT of what occurred there had its origins in Tito’s policies toward all of those various ethnic groups. Indeed, I believe he did a lot of things that are similar to what we’re seeing in our govt in trying to gin up racial animosity. Tito was a lot more successful than the dems have been (so far).
You’re right, I don’t mean that Marxism is necessary to stoke that flame, only that it’s a prominent modern philosophy that fans the fire.
The hatred in the Balkans goes back well before the communists took over. It probably started centuries ago when someone stole someone else’s goat or woman. In fact, Tito did a pretty good job keeping a lid on the ethnic tensions.
I was thinking more of how Facebook has socialized identity (that’s in the second part posting this time next week, so sorry for the early reveal), but what happens if you post wrongthink on your personal page? On Twitter? You can’t anymore. People are having their businesses taken by being deplatformed. No, it isn’t kristalnacht yet, but it sure looks like the leading edge of what descended on Europe not too long after the end of WW2. Or even what preceded that little Austrian guy’s rise in the 30s.
All the more reason to remove ourselves from social media – it’s really a horrid thing.
I agree with the utter pointlessness of social media, but I (sorta) disagree with your take. Should social media only be for those who hector others?? What happens when there’s no place left to hide, JI?
Let the hectors hector each other. The power of social media over us is that we perpetuate the requirement.
And the public square? Do the heckler’s get to drive all of us from there, too, JI?
Is there any place at which you believe someone should stand against the braying jackasses – or just keep ignoring and hope they go away and leave us alone?
As always, it comes down to four options. Submit, confront, find an alternative, leave the space.
I left the space when it came to social media. Not enough redeeming qualities to keep me around.
I left the space as well. Facebook (as just one example) has an iron fist when it comes to what I can say and what I can’t, and it leaves everyone with just enough uncertainty about where the line is that you never know whether the very next thing you write will be the thing that gets you shut down. That inhibits you from going anywhere near that line; you can deal with hecklers, but when someone can veto your very words and you can’t fight back, there really is no further point in speaking. That’s why Facebook is so much more dangerous than more traditional public squares.
If you want a place where you can “stand against the braying jackasses,” you’re gonna need to find one or invent one; the everyday online defaults are no longer any of those places.
What BEAM said.
I don’t say much on FB. I have a couple of hobby groups and I advertise my books there. MAYBE I’ll share a meme or two, but my feed is entirely unobjectionable. Even then, that’s with my nom de plume.
I am almost NOWHERE online as my real name except for my formatting business’s website and 20-year-old articles on weight loss (with my maiden name).
“That’s why Facebook is so much more dangerous than more traditional public squares.”
Exactly – it is not a public square. Ozy, the public square is still that – public. There is a difference.
Being an obedient member of social media is perpetuating the requirement – becoming our own jailers by our own acts.
There is no public square. There are government owned and controlled spaces that call themselves “public,” but they’re not. Go visit the Capitol.
Being an obedient member of social media is perpetuating the requirement – becoming our own jailers by our own acts.
This is increasingly concerning as the social media sphere becomes more and more overtly fascist. Even if I can find social media that I find valuable, is it worth entangling myself in a fascist industry?
So, yeah. Personal or how about Private page? Hint: Doesn’t exist. I run a page for alumni from my fraternity chapter. It’s private, invite only. A guy posted something along the lines of ‘you fags’ in a comment on a post.
Within 5 minutes it was flagged and removed by facebook and some sort of ‘safety’ check was made against the page. If you think something on there is private, you’re a fool.
The alternatives to Derpbook really aren’t any better. I’ve surfed Gab some, and while they don’t censor anyone, it seems to be a playground for every conspiracy-mongering nutjob on the nutbar Right. Parler is a little better, but not much.
Frankly, I’m just damn glad there’s such a thing as Glibertarians. You folks (and my family) are largely responsible for whatever faith I have left in humanity.
Hanging out with a bunch of Tulpa bots validates your faith in humanity?
Fuck off, Tulpa!
Have you seen humanity lately?
Yes.
Really good stuff, Ozy.
This line from his essay caught my eye:
There has never been a time in my life that tomatoes weren’t available. I find that remarkable.
Also, on the latest JBP podcast, he and Bret Weinstein discuss the role of identities and the disconnect between what the wokesters “believe” and what truly is (spoiler: biology gives not one fuck about what you identify as). Worth a listen.
Thanks, Tundra.
Oh, hey, while I’m thinking of it: you have a name of that cobra guy playing hockey? I’m dying to know who it is and if I know him. If you don’t want to reveal, feel free to use my true name with him. I feel confident he’ll know me if he flew during the same time.
He was Army, I misheard. I’ll get his name, though. He wasn’t there last week but his buddy said he’d be back Friday.
What was your group, again?
Ahh. If I recall correctly, the Army only flew the “S” model Cobra – a single-engine variant. Army Reserves were the only folks who had them when I was active.
I was in an east coast Marine squadron: HML/A-269*
*editor note for Tonio* – Helicopter Marine Light/Attack Squadron.
Got it in my phone now. I’ll email what I find out.
In the late ’90s my wife and I were visiting my parents in NW Minnesoda during January. I forget exactly what we were going to cook for them, but I do remember that neither of the two supermarkets in town had egg plants in their produce section.
When we got back to the Twin Cities, we could find a few but they were pretty bedraggled specimens. Now, there is a fine assortment of eggplants at all times both where I live and in my old hometown.
And maybe the definition of “available” is important when discussing tomatoes. How fresh? How good? My mom used to call the tomatoes you could buy at the store during off season “Rhode Island Rocks”. Not sure where she got that from, but it is what I call them now too.
The tomatoes, other than ones from
local farmers, suck year round now at the stores here. Tasteless and mealy. The tomatoes at fast food chains are better than store tomatoes.
It’s really bad. Lowest common denominator selection and breeding.
Campari tomatoes are the only decent tomatoes outside of peak summer.
Or, literally, a
national socialistNazi.I would contend that it is not at all literally, but entirely figurative. For those who are literally fascists are those who are pleased that corporations are subservient to the state, even if they fail to recognize that in themselves.
From the subtle to the sledgehammer, it never stops and it never will.
This is the very same behavior that causes a mob of Muslim men to assault a non-conforming woman as it is of the Twitter-mob that rhees in high dudgeon about a transgression of their social norm.
Of course we non-conformists here are eminently reason-driven and utterly above engaging in such reactions against our general panorama, aren’t we?
That’s tongue-in-cheek, JI. I’m mocking the Twatter brigades and their claims that everyone is (lih-TRUH-lee) a Nazi.
I can’t stand the current slaughter of the word “literally.”
And I am pointing out the irony that those casting stones are those most guilty of the sin.
As with all things projection, destroying the hated part of ourselves is best accomplished by taking it out on someone else.
That’s what I was trying to do, as well, evidently not successfully.
This for me has been one of the great revelations of my life. It explains well-nigh everything I see around me in human relations.
Eh, debating JI is like debating Hyperbole.
It is perfectly normal language evolution for a word to come to mean its exact opposite.
If HM was around, I am sure he could give us insane details.
Back in Uni, when I was taking my Econ/PoliSci degree, Havel’s essay was widely circulated and discussed both inside and outside the seminars, much to the chagrin of the communist professors in those departments. ’Course, back then, there was a decent smattering of unashamed capitalists and democracy supporters in the professorial ranks as well. One of them was a guy whose first name was Max and who everyone called “Mad Max”; his courses were very entertaining, and he was fairly rigorous in his approach to analyzing political modes of thought. The commies hated him, and he treated them with a mixture of amusement and mild disgust/contempt — I always thought it was like the Dilbert cartoon where a binder of documentation was handled like it was a dead ferret.
There are nothing but various “hardnesses” of socialists and commies in those departments now, and Havel’s essay has been consigned to the dustbin of history as far as they’re concerned.
Lovely article on the studied ignorance of academia.
Uffda. I have a buddy who I have worked with in the past trying very hard to recruit me to go work with him on an interesting project. I’m of two minds about it. It would be much more interesting than what I am doing now, but it would also mean I’d have to really work hard again.
The kicker is that I sent him my resume to pass along and he returned it with a bunch of suggested edits. Sigh. How do I tell him – nicely – that I don’t really want the job badly enough to spend time tweaking my resume?
Why not take the leap, Your Holiness? Hard work never killed anyone (at least, that’s what my father used to say, but he either didn’t know about labor camps or ignored them entirely).
I’m close to retirement and I’ve got a pretty cushy gig right now. Indoors, sitting on my ass, no long hours, etc.
New job would be a bit more money, but it would also be longer hours with real deadlines, etc. I’m sure my wife would think the trade off of more money for less leisure time is worth it.
For example, every other Wednesday we have a pointless afternoon meeting for all the developers to “learn” about something new. Currently, I go fishing, connect to the meeting via phone and enjoy myself. I am pretty sure no such opportunity would exist with the new gig.
Ah. So same boat a lot of us are in at this point in life (roughly). I thought that might be the case, but didn’t want to assume.
Yeah, I have moved on from the phase of my life where I worked my ass off at start ups because I was sure one of them would blow up huge and I’d retire super rich.
Don’t get me wrong, I made lots of money but never the “retire on a beach at 40” money.
When I took my current gig, I took a bit of a haircut in return for having no management duties at all. I just sit and code what they tell me to code. What an improvement on my enjoyment of life!
I double the project bid in such cases. It’s a win-win regardless of the outcome.
That sound kind of fun. Start-up?
No, it would be joining a small consulting firm that has a big contract with a large manufacturer.
It is a green field project though, so it would be a nice project to step into.
You should do it. Easy in our situations to get too comfortable and not challenge ourselves.
Greenwald scorching the media yet again:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-do-big-media-outlets-so-often?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyNDcyMDg5NCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzM3ODI2MTAsIl8iOiJEdENBVSIsImlhdCI6MTYxNTkxMjczNywiZXhwIjoxNjE1OTE2MzM3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTI4NjYyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.ejvUF4wiyQk9Rfw8iGdlOEhCTLGaC3GO3wSncJYs1B4
Terrific article. Thanks for the link!
Greenwald is the only journalist doing the hard work, and the only serious journalist challenging the media head-on.
That’s a great article. I’m glad to see someone of Greenwald’s reach is on it.
But Greenwald HAS to know that the phenomenon he’s exposing isn’t coincidence.
The wikileaks/Podesta emails showed that the DNC is abso-fucking-lutely running the major media outlets.
There are emails where this is (wait for it…) LITERALLY spelled out by various members of the media who openly admitted they were “embarrassed” for having Hillary’s campaign edit the reporter’s stories.
How the MSM avoids being viewed as one giant in-kind donation for dem politicians is a mystery to me.
He definitely knows that the corporate media (as he calls it) are little more than Democrat party operatives.
He regularly addresses it, even if not in this article.
Taibbi’s substack is worthwhile. And even Yglesias is sounding a bit red-pilled lately.
Thanks, Ozy. I find it harder, every day, to pretend we are somehow immune to “everything not prohibited is mandatory” collectivism.
There must be ORDER.
Or a QAnon “conspiracy theorist” (whatever the f*** that is).
Has anyone met a QAnon believer? They are apparently everywhere, and yet, nowhere in sight.
I passed the house of one the other day going to Costco – at least per the crudely-made signs in the yard.
Not a one, and I live in the heart of deep red America.
Every single time I’ve heard anything at all about QAnon has been from a liberal.
I’m convinced QAnon is a psyop. Whether it’s completely fake, or if something very few people subscribe to was made to look mainstream I don’t know, but what I do know is that QAnon is mostly a media boogeyman.
It’s a psyop and a 4Chan larp. Some people do believe in it I’d imagine but they’re few and far between. I live in the uber red South and I’ve never met one in meatspace.
My brother says his mother in law has gotten into the Q stuff, but I don’t really know what he means by that.
Q stuff = boobies
There are a lot of them involving with Reopen NH.
Sometimes I can’t bite my tongue.
Their latest is how the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 completely changed the government of the United States.
When I corrected them, the response was “You don’t know what you don’t know.”
RIP Yaphet Kotto.
Of course they left out his best role. Alonzo Mosely, FBI
Aw shit.
Ozy, this (like all your writings here) was top-notch. Thanks.
Apropos of nothing, I’m out of cherry juice, so I just made Wild Turkey 101, ginger ale, and a heavy shake of orange bitters. It’s yummy. Thanks for turning me on to orange bitters, Neph.
Thanks, I0b0t!
Upon re-read I don’t like it as much as I did when I wrote it, but I think the next part’s a little better.
I’m currently working on something related for the following Tuesday slot, as well, if TPTB will give it to me.
I’m going to make an attempt at having something stacked up going forward for this slot every week.
Plenty of fuel for my writing in the current environment, so I suppose I should be grateful for the egregious amount of stupidity from which to choose.
egregious amount of stupidity from which to choose
A most curious muse.
I’ve pondered that about myself for some time, JI.
Why is it that socialists piss me off so much? What about their nonsense seems to particularly grate on my nerves, as opposed to the rest of the world’s stupidity? Or even the hicks and ‘necks and other deplorables? Why am I merely amused by that kind of ignorance, but indignant over Marxists?
I have an answer, but it’s still too amorphous and disjointed to make me think I’ve found the complete answer. I believe there will be some wisdom in unearthing that nugget.
Because they work so hard to attain power over you so they can tell you what to do and steal your stuff.
Why am I merely amused by that kind of ignorance, but indignant over Marxists?
Marxists present a particularly noxious alloy of smug superiority, self-righteousness, ignorance, and vicious will to power?
Plus they are increasingly unavoidable, especially when you consider that a great many of our rulers are de facto Marxists but too ignorant to realize it?
Hey, quit solving my problems for me, you two!
You’ve just short-circuited hours of drinking and use of entheogens to arrive at the same place.
In short, it’s a cancer.
“Why am I merely amused by that kind of ignorance, but indignant over Marxists?”
For my own little subset of the world, there are specific reasons I get more pissed over academics who are unthinking leftists than other unthinking leftists. Academics are (really), very smart, well educated people. Their own research demonstrates hard work, original thinking, nuance, weighing of multiple pieces of evidence, leading to carefully calibrated conclusions.
But, when it comes to modern politics and social trends, they are unquestioning, boilerplate, catch-phrase leftists who display no critical thinking skills whatsoever WHILE, at the same time, insisting that they still be given credit as smart, well-educated people.
Because the deplorables are not outright trying to enslave you?
So, my favorite aunt died last night. Her heart gave out. My uncle died about 6 months ago (many comorbidities, but not COVID).
Today is not a good day.
Sorry, Mo.
Sorry for your loss. My condolences, Mojeaux.
Condolences, Mo.
“Life’s a racket; no one gets out alive.”
I’m so sorry, Moje.
Ugh! Sorry to hear about that. Couples often go in close proximity. If there’s a heaven, I hope they’re together again.
Generally speaking, Mormons see death as a graduation of sorts (although no one uses the word “graduation”). You graduate from this life and go on to an eternity of further learning and creativity with your family and friends.
Sorry Mo.
Condolences, Mojo.
So sorry Mojeaux.
Sorry to hear that, MJ. Hang in there.
My condolences, Mo.
So sorry, Moj
So sorry Mojo
Sorry
My sympathies to your and your loved ones, Mojeaux.
Thanks Ozy – bought Havel’s biography for my Pa after reading this.
Aww.
That genuinely warms my heart. ♥️Makes me want to polish my monocle and lash my orphans, I mean.
Great article. Thanks for posting it.
I’m inclined to think that the demonstrable falsehood of the various slogans isn’t an accident, but precisely the point. That is, the progressive cult demands that people adhere to ideological slogans, not that they might arrive at honestly and independently, but that their own senses and conscience tells them is utterly wrong. Getting people to hold to such ideas makes them complicit in the ideology. Once you’ve gone there, it strikes me that the sky is pretty much the limit. The details of exactly what the particular lie you’re demanding people profess is relatively inconsequential. It could just as easily be “Poop tastes like Chateaubriand” as “Men are women are everything in between.”. It’s the blatancy of the lie you demand people accept that makes getting them to believe it so powerful.
But, that seems like a minor detail of the broader point you seem to be making.
If I could say it that succinctly wd, then WHERE WOULD ALL THE REST OF THE WORDS FOR THE ARTICLE GO?!?
Yes, I believe that is really the point. It’s why they want you to bend the knee. Once you do it, like the bully you hand over the lunch money to, you’ve shown them how the engagement will unfold. That’s why it never stops. My old man told me when I was 12 that the bully wouldn’t stop until i stood up to him, whether I won or lost the fight, and dad wouldn’t intervene.
“You’ve got to stand up to him yourself, son. You have to or he’s going to keep doing this to you in perpetuity. I can’t help you with this no matter how much I might like to.”
Dad knew what was up.
You’re absolutely right. But, I think these bullies hit on something novel. They’ve realized that they could bully people into being assistant bullies (toadies, I guess) systematically. It’s one thing to get someone to hand over their lunch money. But, what if you could get someone to hand over their lunch money and bully other kids into giving you theirs, as well. The extent of your bullying game goes up exponentially.
That said, I think I’m most largely delving into a sub-point of your larger observation.
They’ve gone from being bullies to being a gang is what you’re describing, which I think is perfectly accurate.
That’s what we’re watching now. That’s what socialism is: it’s tribalism at its worst, which is what a gang is.
That’s what the teenage girls who started the Salem Witch Trial panic were doing – once they found out they had power by dint of collective pretension to the same lie, they rode that power pony for as long as they could. I’ll bet a steak dinner on the unknowable proposition that they “got off” on knowing they had acquired that kind of power over others, that each conviction of an innocent was only further proof of their power. It’s what I see on Twitter et al. and the GREAT thing (for socialist-tribalists) is that Twitter and Social Media come with NONE of the downsides of doing what they’re doing in meatspace. They risk next to nothing for the opportunity to bathe in that sweet oxytocin of self-righteousness while watching their chosen enemies fall to the mob.
“There are four lights!” One of the most disturbing, and best, episodes of ST:TNG.
I am tired and middling drunk so I can’t remember who and cant quote it but I bet someone here might. The point of the essay was that the purpose of forcing people to repeat lies is that it makes them into cowards.
It will probably come to me in a week when it is too late. Hoffer maybe?
The point of the essay was that the purpose of forcing people to repeat lies is that it makes them into cowards.
I dread the day that our D & I training requires a confession/struggle session. I don’t want to choose between my job and my self-respect. Its a no-win for me, however it comes out.
Well, at least I dodged the next session. We’ll see how many more I can get out of. What I really want to see is somebody get hit with a lawsuit for these things; that way I can “advise” against them without leaving my turf.
I’ve been practicing in advance: “I’m an old man. I’ve been through all of life’s struggles. I’ve come to peace with myself. I have no further comments.”
I think that’s slightly short-circuiting the process, but close enough for our purposes.
I think the psychology of it is that it’s intended to destroy people’s self-respect, their sense of their own dignity, one lie at a time.
I don’t think it’s as overt as forcing people to confront their cowardice – that risks open revolt (I think).
Havel’s point is that is starts with some plausible way of burying that cowardice under what sounds like reasonable “compromises.”
Then comes the next one. Then the next. And at some point, the frog knows it’s cooked and what is left but capitulation to what already is?
Cowardice is my abbreviation for what you just said. It will eventually come to me. Hell, it might be Havel.
I am getting old and to put something in the filing cabinet I have to take something out to make room.
I found this quote from Theodore Dalrymple. I wonder if this is what you are thinking of?
Thanks, DEG!! If Suthen wasn’t looking for it, I certainly was. That’s a quote I’ve been searching for for quite some time! I was looking for it for this article in fact, but couldn’t find it.
I should have thought of Dalrymple.
You’re welcome!
Why yes, yes it is. Thank you very much DEG. That is exactly the one.
You’re welcome!
I started to post that quote in response to wdalasio but thought, “I should refresh first”.
It’s very apropos.
The noxious shop sign used for leftist virtue signaling in downtown Lexington is particularly sinister.
“Immigrants and Refugees Belong Here”
They BELONG. As in they have a RIGHT to be here.
Not “Immigrants and Refugees Welcome” or something of that sort. They BELONG. It’s a rare sight to see a shop without one in downtown.
Link:
https://www.instagram.com/p/B291VDynV0p/?igshid=1ey6md95kuw6
I am certain the reason Shakespeare wrote “first, kill all the lawyers” is because HR Professionals hadn’t been invented yet.
HR gives all the candidates a phychological test and only those rated “recommended with reservations” or higher are allowed to proceed. The test SCIENCE!tiffically evaluates candidates based on ten different “axes” and then plots the responses in relation to the applied-for job function. Score too low, and you’re unfit. Score too high, and you won’t stick around long enough in this role to be worth hiring/training. There are graphs and charts. It’s all very SCIENCE!
Some of these axes have end points that aren’t even in opposition. But here are some of the “Bad” qualities:
Cynical
Strong-Minded
Independent
Laid Back
Prefers Stability
Spontaneous (wtf? didn’t you just say…)
And that’s not all, these different characteristics are weighted differently in how they lead to the final score. The LEAST important quality for a lab tech according to SCIENCE!? “Applied Problem Solving.” The MOST important? “Valuing Diversity.”
I’m not surprised that such a thing exists, but it is rather disappointing that it does.
I would be very surprised if that sort of woo could survive a legal challenge.
Who’s going to know they got hit by it to sue?
On the plus side, anyone rejected by this system would be absolutely miserable working in such an environment.
That’s the problem — the actual work environment greatly favors independent laid back problems solvers who prefer stability. It’s a night-time 12 hour technician shift. HR is made for and by 8-5ers with lots of office chit-chat, birthday parties and coffee breaks.
The dude getting hired barely squeaked by this step. The far and away top ranked candidate wouldn’t have made it a month. She’d be an excellent customer liason however.
Well by god, HR will make sure that only drones make it in, so that a harmonious hivemind exists when the bottom falls out. And they will congratulate themselves on how good they were at it.
When we first started up, the US-trained HR decided to have a “working across cultures” training for the 58-nation staff that had already been working together for eight months. The subject of personal space cam up and a Frenchman said “perhaps ozzer people might not understand when we greet. We give each ozzer, you know, ze French kiss?”
The looks on the HR people’s faces was worth attending the training.
They got frenched by a frog?
Fortunately, he still got hired.
And, the happiness or fulfilment of the employee aside, what do they think is going to happen to the competence of their organization with these sorts of practices? Do they think they’re setting themselves up to outperform? They seem to be weeding out precisely the people who might be able to contribute in these sorts of roles.
How dare you question them? Do YOU have a degree in Human Resources?
Honestly though, I begin to suspect that the professionalization of everything and the hyper-specialization that goes with it is what’s going to wreck everything. I think one of the reason why people believe the media is that they are “media professional” and they aren’t. What kind of arrogance does it take to quesiton someone who’s gone through at least four years and tens of thousands of dollars to get a journalism degree.
what do they think is going to happen to the competence of their organization with these sorts of practices?
In short, “doesn’t matter, hit my metrics”
Fire all the HR professionals responsible for this drivel and have the people managing the posts do the evaluations instead.
Our recruiters actually refuse to attend my job interviews, and when I hire someone (which is rare), I give them very specific, limited, and objective parameters for screening resumes.
Reminds me of Mr. Plinkett’s list of what women want from men. “He needs to be spontaneous, but only when I’m expecting it.”
“I refuse to take a test designed by white capitalists! Furthermore, testing is a system of oppression.”
One of my favorite parts of Miracle was when Jim Craig wouldn’t take Herbie’s psych test. It ends with a great scene.
“They just scored 10 goals, Jim. Right now it’s everybody’s net.”
I’ve taken those things before. Turns out I don’t fit in very many organizations!
You have encapsulated why, for most of my working life, I had to be an independent consultant/contractor.
We do similar testing, but we don’t allow HR to weed people out for us.
And those qualities you list are practically requirements for us to consider a candidate.
If they don’t do any filtering, the managers complain that they get too many irrelevant/unqualified resumes.
I’m hiring for a plant engineer right now and I’d rather see too many than too few applications. We do let HR do some basic selection, like if there’s a firm degree or experience requirement, so we don’t get every joker that applies, but we do not allow them to suggest nor to nix candidates based on anything else.
The best bit of filtering I ever experienced was at a previous job the recruiter handed my boss the resume of one of my coworkers.
Keywords on my coworker’s resume matched what the recruiter was looking for when the recruiter trolled some job boards.
When my boss saw the resume, my boss asked the recruiter if the recruiter had read the resume. The recruiter replied with, “No, it matched some keywords in my search so I’m giving to you for further screening.”
If someone in HR handed that me, I’d book out of there so fast the desk chair would still be spinning an hour later.
That is so fucking stupid. I hope your resume is up-to-date.
A moderately Large Chemical Company that was recruiting me gave me one of those tests. In my debrief with the Chief People Officer (always a warning sign), he explained the results. “You have a deep interest in science and technology. You are somewhat conflict-averse.”
So much for that test. And when they doubled down on trying to hire me, I ran quickly away.
I’ll leave those thoughts for the next attempt.
I want to see the next essay.
Already in the queue, my man! Next week at same bat time and same bat channel.
I’m also working on a follow up that isn’t in the same “stream,” but is definitely related. Hoping to get that done this week and have it ready for the Tuesday after that (Peace and blessings be upon TPTB!).
Alright, Tulpae, I gotta run. My work here is done.
Can’t keep speaking to you figments of my imagination all day.
?
Great work, Ozymandias. Some real food for thought. 😉
Thank you, Usul, Base of the Pillar.
Hopefully not too… (looks around for Swiss on a dead thread)… spice-y for you.
I’m just glad that you didn’t water it down.
“a great many of our rulers are de facto Marxists but too ignorant to realize it?”
So much agree, RCD. Twenty years ago, I’m at a chamber meeting; maybe 20 of us sitting around a conference table listening to some big shot self-described conservative GOP county official. So he starts going on and on, in politican-speak, about distributing tax money “according to one’s need.” I shook my head, he sees me and stops his presentation to ask why I disagree. So I cobble something together quickly and speak out. about tenets of Marxism. He then accuses me of calling him a communist, laughs, and goes on. Anyway, he corners me in the parking lot after the meeting, and we have a calm discussion on the issue. It turns out he is a contributor to the Reason Foundation and a personal friend of Reason’s Manny Klausner! Talk about cognitive dissonance.