Jump to content

Moonbox

Senior Member
  • Posts

    8,807
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    40

Everything posted by Moonbox

  1. Is that so? Here's your reply, you absolute clown. Where is it? Where did I say statscan was a blog? That's what's so great about the quote function. I can prove you're completely full of shit with the press of the button, while you spiral out and puke all over yourself trying to gaslight...yourself I guess? 🤣
  2. It’s the same folk who’ve supported other presidents. Trump’s unique in that he’s a psychopath - no remorse, no shame, no introspection for anything he does or says. The man has literally no decency and lacks a moral compass, but he does have the cunning needed to understand the dumbest apes, and make loud ape noises back at them.
  3. If you can see what I wrote, you'd just snip the quote instead of limply ranting and insisting on it for paragraphs and paragraphs over multiple posts, convincing yourself that somehow, this is magically more convincing. Beyond that, you're literally trying to argue that I claimed Statscan is a blog. I would have never imagined someone pushing such a frivolous, ridiculous line of reasoning before, but the one thing you've proven here is that CdnFox can always lower the bar further. 👌
  4. Lol indeed. Nobody trips over his own logic like you.
  5. I always get a good laugh of seeing you parse through reality with that smooth-brain of yours. You're complaining about people listening to liars while parroting direct-from-the-Kremlin propaganda and MAGA donkey-logic. Election was stolen! Election was stolen! Bioweapon labs! Joe Biden's laptop! 🤡🤣🤡
  6. Indeed what? You admit you've been rootin' for Pootin' the whole time? The only person who's done any death mongering here is the smooth-brain who said he's hoping to see Ukraine utterly destroyed. 🤡
  7. We can just go through every thread on this forum relating to Putin and Ukraine, and your hundreds and hundreds of posts parroting his propaganda, arguing on his behalf and against his opponents. Short of finally admitting you jerk off to him in the shower, I don't think you could show your support more clearly. We will always have this as well:
  8. No I didn't. That's why you can't quote it. 🤡 I called the two obscure blogs you cited...blogs. Having humiliated yourself again, the only tool you have left in your box is to make something up to argue against, and then spiral out ranting in frustration about points nobody made. You're literally too dumb to argue with anyone but yourself. 🤣
  9. I never said statscan was a blog, nor did I say that the surveys they quoted weren't research. You're just lying and making shit up now to argue against....AGAIN! 🤣 I said that statscan didn't provide any productivity data. Surveying employees on how much better/harder they feel they perform working from home is the same thing as asking them if they prefer to work from home. I love when you try to wrap everything up like this: "Having pissed and shit all over myself, the evidence is quite clear. I declare myself the winner of this debate. The smell speaks for itself." 🤡🤡🤡
  10. So Forbes and LA Times are blogs now, and their citing National Bureau of Economic Research's, Stanford University's and the German Institute of Labour Economics' actual academic study conclusions is...a guy offering his opinion. LOL! 🤡🤡🤡
  11. So your reasoning here is that the obscure 2024 blog articles you posted negate academic research from 2023!? 🤣 Hilariously, you say this shortly after citing academic research from...2021. You just went full-tard. Never do that.
  12. I think this is one of the sillier things you've posted in awhile. Trump and Trudeau are both very bad, and both couldn't go away sooner. They are bad for very, very different reasons, however, and are diametrically opposed on almost everything. The similarities you draw between them are shared by most politicians - the lying, the performances, the narcissism, the grudges etc...You could say the exact same things about Poilievre, but like Trudeau I wouldn't say he's like Trump. Trump is something very, very different.
  13. Yes, the later research is disputing that it's increased productivity. By research, I don't mean the blog articles you scraped off the interwebs, or surveys of employees who want to stay working at home telling everyone how much harder they work at home. 🤡
  14. I would define them as the people who aren't easily replaceable. Considering the near-zero vacancy for federal public service positions we've seen over the last decade, this generally doesn't apply to them. They have workloads they've negotiated via CBA through a militant public sector union, and anything but the bare minimum is wasted effort. High performers are stifled by seniority mandates and rigid compensation, and thus the best and brightest move on. What's left is the mediocre to bad, and it's almost statistically impossible fire the bad ones. 🤷‍♂️ It's no wonder we waste so much money on private consultants.
  15. Evidently there were, because I clicked on it, read it, and cited it. 🤡 It's a matter of tone and repetition for angry babies like him. Would you have read that article and come here, like him to rant about how disgusting and racist Canada is, or do you think maybe you would have offered a bit more nuance and thoughtfulness? For the record, I'm firmly opposed to affirmative action as it's been implemented, and think it's only got worse over time.
  16. Higher skilled than what? Let's not confuse post-secondary education status as "higher skilled", if that's what you mean. Do we call the social studies post-grads working for "Social Development Canada" higher-skilled?
  17. I'm saying the same thing I said from the beginning, days ago: Surveys of employees on how productive they say they are when working remote isn't an accurate gauge of actual their productivity. It's an indication of which work arrangement they prefer. You're citing a "report" by this tiny team of post-pubescent tech-bloggers: who apparently surveyed 1000 "business leaders" on how productive they think they are, and concluded that the ones who are fully remote tended to believe they are more productive. I can only imagine the titans of industry that responded to their survey. That's the data you're relying on? 🤣
  18. Oh boy! Employees self-reporting that "Oh yes, definitely. I get way more work done in my pyjamas at home when my boss can't keep an eye on what I'm doing." It's almost like we've already been over this: So here we are, come full-circle, with you regurgitating exactly what I'd originally criticized, and still offering no actual data on productivity. 😆 He says, after making a fool out of himself once again.
  19. So a white person with a penis, who self-identifies as non-binary, could still meet the criteria, as could a white female, or a white transgender man, correct? There's certainly a lot to dissect in a job posting like this, and (IMO) much to criticize, but what can we conclude from it? Does this show that Canada is a "disgusting racist country", or have the various (mostly) well-meaning institutions got their priorities so absurdly mixed-up that they're becoming dysfunctional. It looks to me like the University of New Brunswick is trying so hard to be progressive that they've bent their spines past breaking and made a mockery of themselves and what they're trying to achieve. That's a very different discussion than "racist against white men", isn't it? 😑
  20. The statscan page has literally no data on productivity - nothing whatsoever. Thanks for highlighting your bullshit in first sentence of what will assuredly be another bloviating ramble that won't be worth reading. I'll refer you to my previous response:
  21. I don't think you did. I know you did. I clicked your link and read it. It didn't even remotely say what you claim it did. I "did my own research", and it made you look like a clown who reposts links he hasn't even read. 🙃
  22. I clicked on the link you posted saying NB University wouldn't hire white men. I read the whole thing. Not only were white men not even mentioned, but they didn't even say they were preferential to minorities. The only preference they listed was a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. Are you trying to look stupid? 🙄 Did little Zeitgeist get fooled again by a rage-bait title that he didn't even bother reading before reposting it here like a zombie? Seems like it!
  23. ...but you didn't. You posted a Statscan page that had zero data on productivity, a National Post article that specifically concluded against your claim, and a fluff piece from axios.com (whoever they are?). Remote work can be more productive for the right people, in the right situations (particularly for higher-skilled work, where individual output can be objectively measured and compensation is heavily performance-based). There's a reason the private sector soured on 100% remote work in 2023, and that's because training and especially supervision is required for the large swathes of unmotivated, mediocre workers trading their time for money. Nowhere would this dynamic be more present than in the public service administration.
  24. Unsurprisingly, the link you've provided here says absolutely nothing about white men. 🙄
×
×
  • Create New...