hahhahaha

>>127911009
>decisions based on emotions

>>127911009
Literally illegal.

>>127911199
But white men are the LOGICAL ones!!

>>127911573
It's legal to discriminate against political ideology.

>>127911009
>It is because working here requires superior reasoning, logic and reading comprehension skills, and in our experience, Liberals are deficient in those areas.

Should read: It is because working here requires superior reasoning, logic, and reading comprehension skills, and in our experience liberals are deficient in those areas.

Only a retards don't know that capitalizing words that don't start a the beginning of a sentence or aren't a place or name is incorrect.

Only uber retards make mistakes like this while claiming to maintain high written communication standards.

Regardless of political affiliation, I think working for retards sucks balls.

>>127911833
No it isn't.

>>127911009
Someone who makes decisions based on their emotions is prisoner of his own drive.
The purest (and probably only) form of freedom is escaping that prison & act logical even if its against your instincts.

I get that he means the people that call themself "liberals" and many of them are fucking degenerated, but true liberals are exactly the people he wants to hire.

>>127912687
>t. butthurt liberal

there you again with your emotional reasoning

>>127912834
Cite it

>>127912834
>>127911833

Political ideology - yes
Political affiliation - no

https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

>turning against your fellow countrymen this swiftly
>proceeding to be a petty little bitch about it
disgusting, should burn this shit-shack to the ground.

>>127911833
>>127912834
"maybe"
It depends on where it is and who the employer is

>>127911009
This could get ugly.

Of course Libshits will respond by refusing to hire conservatives because their racist, sexist, homophobic tendencies tend to be bad for business.

>>127911009
Everybody makes decisions based on emotions.

How do you define rationality? As homo economicus decision making (rational, logical process following pure self-interest and based on discounted unbiased expectations)?

If yes, empirical observations contradict your theory. If not, there is no way to objectively differentiate rationality from emotions.

>>127912834

Yes, it is. People are discriminated against all the time for voting Trump. Youre a total idiot.

>>127912834
why are racists not allowed in many places then?

>>127913550
Yeah liberals like to destroy little mom and pops when their feelings get hurt.
>fellow countrymen
>liberals
Nah I view them more as enemies than I ever will any Isis member

File: 5D girls are important.png (442KB, 930x1012px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 930x1012px

>>127913628
>liberals
>business owners

choose one.

>>127911573
Doesn't say "We do not hire Democrats". thus not illegal. Other legally acceptable discrimination:
>We do not hire conservatives
>We do not hire progressives
>We do not hire Nazis
>We do not hire SJWs
>We do not hire snowflakes
>We do not hire Pedes
>We do not hire furries
>We do not hire normies

>>127911009
What will they call us, now that communism ain't a thing.

>>127913694
the ability to work towards an external goal vs following immediate whims

>>127911009
fake and gay. sage

>>127914048
>I view them more as enemies than I ever will any ISIS member
Then you're blind and aren't worth joining

>>127913879
I know so many people that would get fired, tarred, and feathered if their conservative political ideology was made public(such as voting for trump, the person who won the goddamn election). Hell it's one of the reasons this fucking board is popular.

>>127913694
There's no way to objectively prove that you're not a brain in a jar with sensors telling you you're alive. You can always create a way of looking at something that makes it impossible to come up with an answer. It's like saying 'the bible is right because it says it is'- I believe in it, but that's not an argument I use, because it's stupid.

I define rationality as a method of acting that will be good for person acting, which usually means it's not terrible to everybody else. People make a lot of decisions without thinking about it. People also eat every day because they know they'll die if you dont. That's not a very emotional decision. I would call that as close to an objective viewpoint (I will die without food) and a rational decision (I should eat some food) as we can get.

When people get mad at somebody, that's an emotion. When they murder that person, that's probably not a rational decision. When they don't kill that person, they're probably thinking rationally.

People do both.

File: 1496078803445.jpg (7KB, 249x214px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 249x214px

>>127911573
white men invented "logic" as a tool of oppression.

File: Posterity.jpg (59KB, 294x371px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 294x371px

>>127911009

This is funny and all, but a person's political orientation has largely to do with their value systems and goals, not their intelligence.

Any argument about policies devolves into an argument about tastes. It is no different than if I were to discuss with another person the best flavor of ice cream, it is a matter of taste (value) not some objective measure. To illustrate, some people value their families and posterity, while others value their own selfish pleasures and redistributing public wealth to fund their hedonistic pleasures.

Different value systems, not intelligence, distinguish people along the left/right spectrum.

>>127912687
>Only a retards don't know
Your post is barely coherent, you literal retard. Learn to read and write before grammar checking shit that you read online.

>>127914374
Isis is a nothing meme threat that would be laughibly crushed without worry of what libshits think. You tickets on the other hand are a clear and immenent threat to the ideals of this country so yeah, Dave the douchebag hipster is 10000x the enemy to me as some achmed playing bomberman

>>127913628
That might be a problem if Liberals owned businesses that didn't hire exclusively on diversity and nepotism.

>>127914277
No way to prove that any goal a person pursue is external in essence and no way to prove that longer time preferences are more rational than shorter ones.

Rationality can only be strictly defined is we can demonstrate logically what an optimal outcome would be. Yet it is even impossible to demonstrate (in logical terms) that lots of sex is better than being an incel or being a billionaire jet setter better than being a NEET.

Basically, any form of statement (even "exist" or "1+1 = 2") can not be proven without making unprovable assumptions. This is why rationality as a concept cannot be defined. Modern economics are thus based on empirical observations of utility ('revealed preferences').

>>127913694
>homo economicus

homo-consumerithicus

>>127914739
Not all liberals are post-structuralists my guy.

File: 1496020229148.png (7KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x200px

>>127912687
>u

>>127914861
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/brain-magnets-decrease-faith-in-god-religion-immigrants-a6695291.html
Being a liberal is literally the result of a lobotomy.

Someone who calls them self a "liberal" is probably ok to hire. That term has basically become a pejorative amongst SJWs.

Where to draw the line? How about

"Anyone who agrees with any of the nonsense spouted at Evergreen State College need not apply"

>>127911009
where is this place

i wanna apply for a job

>>127914912
You never caught on to the fact that you've rendered yourself sediment, I don't blame you.
>You tickets
Even assuming I'm among them, it's only fair to believe that you're not very far from hysterical.

>>127914432
The tolerant people tolerate only those who agree with them.

>>127913912
Because there isn't an openly racist party

>>127911573
Found the nigger

File: you.jpg (13KB, 163x201px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 163x201px

>>127914886
My post coherent is, and you you fuck missed my point. It's getting it hard right the tiny stupid first time in this little box.

retard you fuck

>>127915197
I interpreted 'external' to mean one that directly affects something other than yourself, e.g. a company goal.

>>127915197
>No way to prove that any goal a person pursue is external in essence and no way to prove that longer time preferences are more rational than shorter ones.
The point being made is that the external goals is set by the employer and the employee must deploy the rationality to meet those goals. Immediate and inconsistent reasoning (aka emotion based decision making) are a poor way to meet those goals. Also through empirical observation and game theory one can lay safely lay down axioms about what are rational heuristics for behavior, being a NEET or incel is statically non optimal for the meaning of life (the creation of neg-entropy)

File: 1495441871031.jpg (27KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 540x540px

> muh Fucking homophobic racist conservshits make the best employees

>>127911009
Omg I'm literally shaking

>>127914546
>There's no way to objectively prove that you're not a brain in a jar with sensors telling you you're alive. You can always create a way of looking at something that makes it impossible to come up with an answer. It's like saying 'the bible is right because it says it is'- I believe in it, but that's not an argument I use, because it's stupid.

Exactly. That is the point of leftist deconstructionism and Nietzsche's comment 'God is dead'.

>I define rationality as a method of acting that will be good for person acting, which usually means it's not terrible to everybody else. People make a lot of decisions without thinking about it. People also eat every day because they know they'll die if you dont. That's not a very emotional decision. I would call that as close to an objective viewpoint (I will die without food) and a rational decision (I should eat some food) as we can get.

Here you assume:
(i) that survival/eating is good; in practice, I also assume that since I do eat. But it's not provable without assumptions.
(ii) you seem to hint at the idea of Pareto optimums (situations of equilibrium where any improvement in one's own marginal utility can only result in a decrease in aggregate utility); I don't buy into this idea because it assumes either assumes that 'optimum' can be defined or that revealed utility is 'optimal'.

>When people get mad at somebody, that's an emotion. When they murder that person, that's probably not a rational decision. When they don't kill that person, they're probably thinking rationally.

It's impossible to define rationality, again. I get what 'rationality' means in the layman's lexicon though: what an average guy not in prison or in a mental clinic would generally decide. But it is not a rigorous concept.

>>127912834
Yes it is

>can't fire a neo nazi because it's his affiliation

File: DBL0KKJXcAI4-gZ.jpg large.jpg (48KB, 720x554px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 720x554px

>>127915801
at least they are not an openly moronic party
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/04/opinions/paid-family-leave-for-all-boushey-bethell/
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/trump-paid-leave-ivanka/
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/30/opinions/trump-budget-paid-leave-calder-opinion/

File: 1491440506864.png (309KB, 1228x1752px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1228x1752px

>>127911009
Good.

Leftists are like an infection, you let them in and it will rot from the inside out.

>>127916745
Here's the archive.
https://archive.is/cw0Sx <- edition.cnn.com article
https://archive.is/q591i <- edition.cnn.com article #2

>>127916348
>The point being made is that the external goals is set by the employer and the employee must deploy the rationality to meet those goals. Immediate and inconsistent reasoning (aka emotion based decision making) are a poor way to meet those goals.

Immediate and inconsistent reasoning is not always economically wrong and principles-based, consistent reasoning (as is leftism if rigorously based on a set of - unprovable -
assumptions such as the desirability of social equality) not always economically right.

If we want to go that route though, leftism is clearly better than rightism as a corporate employee at the moment because of the law of intolerant minorities - see Taleb's article on the topic. In most jobs, success does not depend on pure intellectual skills but on relationships; being a nazi will mean your professional death while being a leftist is fashionable is part of corporate culture for decades through the CSR theory.

>Also through empirical observation and game theory one can lay safely lay down axioms about what are rational heuristics for behavior, being a NEET or incel is statically non optimal for the meaning of life (the creation of neg-entropy)

If it depends on axioms it is not provable by pure rational means. That's my point - and the point of Nietzsche's active nihilism and Evola's supra-rationality if well understood.

>>127912834
No he's right, the civil rights act does not protect employees for discrimination againts political ideology. States may add on to the act if choose to. But no its not illegal.

>>127916866
Nice, where's this from?

Explains why leftist men tend to have a lot of personal problems. There is the old labor element of the democrat party, hardworking white men who wanted the government favor, but that small, barely respectable part of the party has been gone for a long time. Last represented by Jim Webb who got edged out by burny sandurs and the annoited one.

>>127917859
>Nice, where's this from?

Industrial Society and its Future - AKA, the Unibomber Manifesto.

>>127918373
aw shit nigga, you've got problems when even the unabomber sees them

>>127916593
>Exactly. That is the point of leftist deconstructionism and Nietzsche's comment 'God is dead'.

I dont subscribe to Nihilist postmodernism. I'd be willing to bet literally all the money i had that if you or i are stabbed in the hand, pain will register in our brains 100% of the time- unless you or are were born without nerve endings or something. So while, yes, objective experience, fact, and decisions making is TECHNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, that does no good to anybody to make decisions using only that fact. I'm not disagreeing on the fact that all we have is "functional" truth, but not every single decision is based on emotion. Operaring on assumptions that have worked so far is not the same thing as operating on emotion.

>(ii) you seem to hint at the idea of Pareto optimums (situations of equilibrium where any improvement in one's own marginal utility can only result in a decrease in aggregate utility); I don't buy into this idea because it assumes either assumes that 'optimum' can be defined or that revealed utility is 'optimal'.
You're right that "optimum" is, again, subjective. So all we have is subjective optimum. I would bet, again, that almost everybody would say suffering is bad. When almost everybody in my species agrees on something, I'm going to call that good enough and use that. One optimum would then be "no suffering, ever". That's a functional assumption, which is all we have to go on.

>It's impossible to define rationality, again. I get what 'rationality' means in the layman's lexicon though

True. Doesn't matter though. Operating only on the fact that there is no objective truth achieves nothing. Saying, "No, there is no Truth, and the universe may be a computer simulation, but I'm still going to eat food and try to decrease suffering in the world" lets us make progress.

The non-layman's lexicon's definition of rationality does nothing for the world. It's logical, but it it doesn't achieve anything to use ONLY that definition.

>>127911009
This is so morally wrong.
How can they feed their wives' children if they don't have a job?

>>127911009
>we dont do this but we do this
Nah

>>127917499
>Immediate and inconsistent reasoning is not always economically wrong and principles-based
They are wrong most of the time, thus they have little utility in the accomplishing external goals. The probability that an employee's immediate reasoning is more optimal is so low with such a small upshot that it is worthless to the employer. Having self control and being able to self reflect one's action to determine optimal immediate behavior heuristics does not make one an autistic Nazi-robot. Even in your scenario of fashionable leftism (it is not in most jobs outside of media and academia) the optimal route would be to feign leftism in a calculated way.

>If it depends on axioms it is not provable by pure rational means
no axioms about the real world are provable by pure rational means, though some rules and laws appear to be inductively true to the point that most people accept them to be axiomatically true.

>>127911009
>It is because working here requires superior reasoning, logic and reading comprehension skills


Yes, and anyone with a modicum of any of those would know just how extremely stupid and inflammatory writing such a thing and posting it publicly would be.

Even as a fiscal-conservative I wouldn't want to work in a place where posting such tripe would be allowed.

>>127911573
Ah yes but you seem to forget that /pol/ is not a white paradise but a melting pot of red pilled individuals.

File: angel-adams.jpg (67KB, 481x369px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 481x369px

>>127918804

Dey needz dey jobs so dey can payz dey taxes. SOMEBODY gots ta support mah 15 kidzz!

>>127919379
i just shit myself

>>127919094
>>127918722

Some axioms are universally accepted; some because the nature of human existence requires it (like: 'I really exist and life is good' or 'I should breathe rather than not') and some because of the nature of human intellect (like consistent preferences - if A>B and B>C, A>C- and rational reasoning - If A=B and B=C, A=C). Of course I get it.

But we can't formally prove it and what it takes to believe it 100% is having faith in the human mind. I just don't.

As far as corporate behaviour is concerned, yes the best thing to do is to feign leftism in a calculated way. The CSR theory has a word for it: "instrumental CSR". Still, this means that in theory it's better to come up as a liberal (or, in fairness, a mild liberal not too much into politics) during interviews.

File: IMG_1946.png (535KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1536x2048px

>>127917859
>>127918373

I read this manifesto recently and it's surprisingly well-done. The diagnosis of "leftists" early in the text is staggeringly accurate and immediately recognizable. Considering these observations were made around or before 1995, Kaczynski looks like a prophet almost, until you realize he'd been in schools rubbing shoulders and studying these types at Harvard, the University of Michigan, and Berkeley before going full >>>/out/ in Montana.

Most readers don't make it to he end where he picks this up again in the section "THE DANGER OF LEFTISM" (pic related). It's also spot on and eerily relevant to what we're seeing with the DNC and MSM.

Here's one source, use Tor if you're worried about being on a list.
http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

>>127919222
>can't take a joke

Damn dude go lay on the beach awhile or something that's like the whole point of your island

>>127920591


No, my island is for industrial development.

>>127911573
>>127912834
Fucking morinic progressive dipshit gets BTFO and then disappears. Surprising.

>>127911009
>based on emotions

So you're fine with abortion then

>>127911199
You need to learn the difference between feeling and reason.

Stupid underage nigger

>>127911009
>>Logical ones
>>What is grammar

>>127911009
Things such as this are why I hate the GOP in all its forms, bunch of dumb fucks and inbreds god damn.

>>127914861
Your value systems and goals are determined by your intelligence, or lack of intelligence.

get btfo

>>127911009
>Turning away good help because of politics.
Nigger tier logic.

>>127911009
>mfw noone on this board has enough critical reasoning to realize that this is fake
Why do conservatives think with their emotions so much?

>>127912687

Meh, I'm a Trump supporter and I agree with this leaf.

I was perturbed by the capitalization of this particular sign.

>>127923216
>good help
>liberal

Pick one.

>>127912834
Yes it is. You cant make a job qualification a political affiliation unless you are actually working in politics in some way. A republican cant refuse to hire someone because they are a liberal, and vice versa.