October 21, 2015

The myths of "the good life" and that work should be fun and happen in a fun place only serve to enslave you to the progressive's hedonic treadmill

Filed under: philosophy — Benjamin Vulpes @ 12:00 a.m.
The myths of "the good life" and that work should be fun and happen in a fun place only serve to enslave you to the progressive's hedonic treadmill

It's unreasonable to bear Michael Jantzi any particular ill will; to paraphrase Ballas, if it weren't that particular liberal running a company based on inventing metrics on which to evaluate his betters, it'd be another just like him. Jantzi runs (or is kept in a corner office as a trophy at) Sustainalytics, a company that offers all sorts of "metrics" purporting to evaluate the "Environmental, Social and Governmental" performance of public companies. The man and his plan came to my attention via HBR, and their Top CEO list. This year HBR changed the evaluation criteria from "stock price only" to an agglomeration of fuzzy metrics that include stock price in addition to Sustainalytics' proprietary "goodness evaluation" metrics.

The reason this is even in my face at all (HBR being a banned publication and sister propaganda organ to the famous Grey Lady, pushing the same rhetoric styled slightly differently for the "business-inclined" liberal) is because Jeff Bezos of Amazon has, according to HBR, toppled from #1 to #87 in their list of Best Performing CEOs. The message across social media, is that this is a glorious day for the world, this day wherein the HBR has toppled that meanie-pants Jeff Bezos! We know that Bezos is a Bad Person because there's this other article in the New York Times about the mythically "hard-charging" environment that is the Amazon workplace. Because social media is jamming this message on all bands, and the public at large is lapping it up, I can trivially deduce that there is an actual agenda being pushed, and would love to share with you what that agenda is:

  1. Work should be fun, and that the work place should be a wonderful, caring, cheerful place.
  2. People like Jeff Bezos are responsible for fostering unpleasant work environments and as such are bad peopleAnd, unifying points 1. and 2.:
  3. The world can be a better place if we all work together to make it so!

All of which is utter bull hockey.

Should is strictly disallowed as a lens for looking at the world:

All Nature is but Art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction, which thou canst not see
All discord, harmony not understood,
All partial evil, universal good:
And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,
One truth is clear, whatever is, is right.

Alexander Pope

Teaching people to look at the world as a malleable thing is one of the foundations of socialist brainrot. In nearly all situations the world is the environment in which you are privileged to operate, and you do not get to question its tenets. Wouldst thou question gravity, and call it "inequitable", in that the rich can pay to fly and you cannot? The socialists would, and moreover insist that we all must walk in order to be equal together in the eyes of god. Once a people accepts the notion that the world is an improvable place, they are ripe for the next set of cons: convincing them that only their governments are actually capable of bringing about the envisioned utopia. Socialists revile the church not for its promulgation of irrational faith but because historically churches have championed the improvement of the world as a thing that the devoted do—not a thing which may (or even should) be outsourced to le etat. Once they effect the malleable-world sleight-of-hand, the state takes over the distribution of taxes to the poor in various forms, which leads in short order to an explosion of apparatchiks milking the state of salaries in return for "overseeing" the distribution of government largesse. None of which the "voter" has any control over.

And since we're on the topic:

Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

Take a good hard look at how socialism can rot a mind. Can you imagine the person who actually thinks that giving away money is anything other than the welfare state's final form?


…why not just give them cash? Doing so would not only cut down on the huge administrative costs of America’s welfare programs, it would also promote personal responsibility and abolish much of the humiliation and stripped dignity associated with the current welfare system.

Feeny, Reason

Bezos runs a company, not a playground for millenials. He runs it to make a profit, not to make people's lives better. The socialist state exists not to improve the world, but to extract as much from the gullible as it can by convincing them that it's making the world a better place, and in this time, not even a better place for the cattle it's actively milking, but a better place for literally anyone but them. Should it surprise anyone that the commies are taking off after people who run successful businesses that might not be the best place to work? The only reason that you don't hear this cant about Boeing, Intel or Microsoft is that those are all allies of the United States Government—Boeing makes the jets, Intel makes the diddled chips, and Microsoft pushes Windows into every possible concavity. Amazon has yet to cave, and so the USG must bring the full weight of…popularity lists to bear against Jeff Bezos.

And to recapitulate, no there will be no making of the world a wonderful place. Individuals may carve out isolated islands of not-horrible from the world, as they have always done and always will. The state, however, can do nothing but smear the experience of life into a great grey homogeneity. Since that's all it can do, you should expect to see more of these smear pieces against anyone who might be considered "great", and pieces from the New Yorker puffing up the reputations of those who kowtow to the party line. Musk, as purveyor of shiny, short-lifespan electric cars and a new launch option to the USG is not up for targeting like this. Jobs, as a tyrant of quality, must necessarily be destroyed: "Oh, he was selfish in bed. Oh, he was mean to his staff." A manager who wishes to not see poor quality works ensures that his staff are adequately incentivized to not bring him shoddy work, and yes this means going into code and design reviews nervous at what novel mistakes will get called out this time.

Work, I repeat, is not fun.


Which actually turns out to be a complicated topic. They claim to have:

…calculated three metrics: the country-adjusted total shareholder return (including dividends reinvested), which offsets any increase in return that’s attributable merely to an improvement in the local stock market; the industry-adjusted total shareholder return (including dividends reinvested), which offsets any increase that results from rising fortunes in the overall industry; and change in market capitalization (adjusted for dividends, share issues, and share repurchases), measured in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars.


All of which sounds reasonable, but is not in my wheelhouse of expertise and so I cannot comment upon the quality of their work or even the validity of their approach.

The Harvard Business Review, numbskull. Do you really think that because it says "Harvard" over the door their jobs are to do anything but push the post-Soviet communist party lines? Russia imported communism from America—and the Red Scare notwithstanding it's not been purged since.

A good fucking is a selfish act—yes, someone besides the fucker might derive some pleasure from the experience, but I beg of you: consider what a good fuck is. Perhaps we mean to say that "he wasn't a sensitive lover", and that's fine and all but shouldn't we also say what we mean? And not cast aspersions on the things we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms? I have a hard time imagining a BDSM-inclined Steve Jobs not catching posthumous flak for beating women—even if it were consensual.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL


« The CIA's flickr account --- "Hey kid, want to buy some VERBOTEN HATE SPEECH?" »