Talk:Precarity

message: My vote, for what it's worth, is NOT to merge Precariat with Precarity.
They are clearly related terms.  However there is significant difference in the contexts in which these terms are most often used.  The differences are not merely a matter of their parts of speech nor of nuance.  One refers to a social stratum, caste or situation while the other refers to a condition (possibly transient).  To say that members of a trade or profession have been driven into the precariat is vastly different than to say that they are recently experiencing precarity.  JimD (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Merge Proposal 

message: The existence of the Social Christianity Box on such a prominent position is extremly misleading. It suggests that - whatever Precarity might be - is a part of the Christian religion, but not in a way that it is practiced but created by it.
I think to use such a box an article specifically dealing with the christion aspects of precarity would be needed. You cant add that box to the Prayer entry either as every other religion would have to have their overview present too.
--Larzan (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting the removal of the Social Christianity Box 

message: Precarity is a term used to refer to either intermittent work or, more generally, a confluence of intermittent work and precarious existence. In this latter sense, precarity is a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.136.11 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precarity 

message: This was done after a month.Harrypotter 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger removal

message: I'm not sure whether this article is biased or not, primarily because the definition (where you can find it) is so unclear that the reader can't make heads or tails of what "precarity" is.  A short sentence up front defining what precarity is, absent any post-modern jargon (i.e., "contingent," "postindustrial" or completely fabricated words such as "flexploitation"), would be a very very good start.  Frankly, who cares how the term got its start if we don't know what the term means.  To paraphrase Denzel Washington in Philadelphia, explain it to me like I'm an intelligent 12 year-old.  Epstein's Mother 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Horribly unclear

message: An anonymous editor removed a whole load of materialabout Catholicism etc.although there was auseful reference added. I am not sure if this is deliberate vandalism by some sort of orangeman or what. Substantial changes sjould be discussed on the talk page.Harrypotter 05:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Material

message: I hope unbiased observers will agree this is the best possible compromise, given the above contributor's stubborness in distorting the nature of the entry. I urge the person using the pseudonym of Harry Potter not to use wikipedia to wage her/his ideological battles, and use discussion lists and journals instead. Especially, the Christianity box was seriously misleading users about the content of the entry and has been substituted with the Labour box, whose applicability I don't think can be disputed by any reasonable observer. ciao, lx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.23.1 (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi there! Well done Harry Potter for keeping up with this lot!!! 50 points to Gryffyndor! (although i think they expelled us a few years back didn't they?)., anyway, i've reverted the unsigned vandalism and added a bit about San Precario which i will improve when i have time but i'm very busy as i only just got back from the consecration of the 3rd Bishop of Hanuato'o on Sunday!!! Paki.tv 23:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Precarity is about Labor (the initial reference to the supposed first usage of the word in English by Catholic social organizers has been preserved)

message: Having seen the Christian Democrat template, perhaps the way forward here is to create a new template for use on such pages liberation theology, Christian communism, Christian anarchism, Christian socialism, Catholic Worker Movement, Social Gospel, Christians Against Poverty, Settlement movement, Christian Socialist Movement and Religious left along with individuals lke Dorothy Day, Toni Negri, Jane Addams etc. I feel this might help the person/people who don't know how to use the four tildes to sign there name. Christian Left redirects to the religious left and would be too closely associate with that conception. What would be a better name for such a template?Harrypotter 12:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Please learn to use the tildes) I think it is more a case that I am "out of your mind", i.e. I exist outside of the realm of the social political and moral precepts which constitute domain of the furniture of your mind. I would be grateful if you would clarify your reference to continuous vandalism. In the first place, edit contibutions constitute sporadic quanta of information, and so are better described as continual". I feel you have misread the above. Iwas suggesting we find someterm for left Christianity, which avoids the more narrow definition wqhich has emerged in north America. Whilst it is obviously necessary to locate Negri's thought within catholoicism, the phenomena of left Christianity is as rife amongst proestamts as catholics, and I am sorry if I have given the impression that that was what I had in mind.As I wandered about today I was thinking perhaps the termSocial Christianity might be more acceptable. The information about San Precario perhaps deserves it own page. Clearly it is very catholic response to the Luther Blissett, whose critical relation to catholicism I would hope is apparent.Harrypotter 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal of a new template for leftist Christianity

message: Harrypotter: the authoritarism with which you have impossed your manipulative distortion of the work that so many people has made to build up this page, and all the real, factual work behind it, has one simple description: you are a social christian fascist.
The simplemindness of your knickname is more than just a game: it is a proper name for a childish, whimsical, fanciful, fussy attitude which consists in imposing one's own caprices over anything else. Even when your contribution on the use of "precarity" term in social-christian movements could be of course seriously taken in count, to use that historical, nearly anecdotal fact to *impose* an overdetermination onto the *whole* page under the label "christiany" shows the enormity of your ego, and the authoritarianism and sectarianism which lies behind your pathetic false social middle-class christian commitment.
End of the discussion. Use this page to rub your bu**hole; i'm sorry, i mean your holy christian bottom.
Satanás.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.204.234 (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do find it necessary to place such bizarre comments on wikipedia, they should be placed upon the talk page of the person you are targetting with abuse rater than on a talk page for a specific topic.Harrypotter 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sometimes I feel like Virgil escorting Dante through the nether regions. The page has not been blocked, but semi-protected, i.e. preventing people who don't use logins, from editing the page. Anyone can choose to create an identity and manifest themselves in that region of cyberspace that go by the name of wikipedia. This is very different from blocking a page "so that no other changes can be introduced" . . . I am doing best to try and encourage the recent spate of editors from Spain, to spend a little time trying to grasp the intrecacies of wikipedia, before engaging in heated discussions. I think they might find an understanding of Charles Peirce useful as they seem to be going between Peirce's firstness, focussing on ideas, chance and possibility - tied to the pure abstraction of a quality -  to secondness where brute reality creates a resistance which entails a dyadic stasis before th eruption of thirdness, the manifestation of the General Intellect as neither through themonotheistt/Monarchia of the White Guelphs nor the negritude of the multitude, but morea continuity which never comes to rest. I hope this chart is helpful:
Peirce's Categories (technical name: the cenopythagorean categories"Minute Logic", CP 2.87, c.1902 and A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.329, 1904. Relevant quotes viewable at the Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms Eprint, under "Categories, Cenopythagorean Categories")
Name:      	Typical characterizaton:                     	As universe of experience: 	As quantity:              	Technical definition:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              	Valence, "adicity":
Firstness. 	Quality of feeling.                          	Ideas, chance, possibility.	Vagueness, "some".        	Reference to a ground (a ground is a pure abstraction of a quality)The ground blackness is the pure abstraction of the quality black which in turn amounts to which embodies blackness (in which phrase the quality is formulated as reference to the ground). The point is not merely noun (the ground) versus adjective (the quality), but whether we are considering the black(ness) as abstracted away from application to an object , or instead as so applied (for instance to a stove). Yet note that Peirce's distinction here is not that between a property-general and a property-individual (a trope). See "On a New List of Categories" (1867), in the section appearing in CP1.551. Cf. the Scholastic conception of a relation's foundation, Deely 1982, p. 61 (Google Books, registration apparently not required).	Essentially monadic (the quale, in the sense of the thing with the quality).
Secondness.	Reaction, resistance, (dyadic) relation.	Brute facts, actuality.    	Singularity, discreteness.	Reference to a correlate (by its relate).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	Essentially dyadic (the relate and the correlate).
Thirdness. 	Representation.                              	Habits, laws, necessity.   	Generality, continuity.   	Reference to an interpretant*.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     	Essentially triadic (sign, object, interpretant*).
Harrypotter 23:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  your christian bottom 

message: so each group can have their own article referring to their own precarity.  please be nice to each other in your own places. --Buridan (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 precarities 

message: Editor Buridan aka Jeremy Hunsinger has been participating in a discussion with Alex Foti here ina discussion about this page. Of course, Alex Foti can entertain whatever delusions he likes, but when Jerry comes on Wikipedia he should be guided by the principles of wikipedia rather than simply folowing the guidelines of his mentor. In particular, Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
As Foti is an unremitting Eurocentrist coming out with such positions as "il nostro spazio politico è l’Europa" - Our Political Space is Europe L'altra verona - it is hard to see why Editor Buridan would find the term eurocentric ideology problematic. However rather than discuss the matter on the talk page, he has embarked on a series of inappropriate edits. Bearing in mind the somewhat bizarre edits which have been preserved at Talk:Precarity (Social Christianity), to which his recently added comment is hardly helpful.
In the face of an immoderate response to develop the two pages, I have taken the trouble to develop the Precarity (Euromayday) page. As Editor Buridan is concerned about too many pages, maybe this should be moved to a sub-section of Euromayday?Harrypotter (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurocentrist confusions

message: I have proposed that Precarity (Euromayday) and Precarity (Social Christianity) be merged back into one article under this title. It seems to me that those two articles are on the same subject, and are in fact POV forks of one another. We should not have separate articles on the same subject for 'Group A's view of X' and 'Group B's view of X' (except where these views are extremely notable in their own right) - generally speaking, they should be merged into a single article on X. That is, in fact, what used to be the case here - there used to be only a single article on Precarity, until the others were split out in early 2009. They still contain some of the same content (e.g. the 'San Precario' section is the same in both these articles). That is a good sign that there should, in fact, be only one article here, not two or more. Please comment on this proposal below. Robofish (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: es saiti aris mxolod yleebistvis da ar shecavs virusebs da magis dedas sheveci vinc am saitze shemova  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.77.7 (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.soko.ge 

message: the reason i said a few years ago that the page is biased is that it's clearly written from a strongly left-wing perspective.  it makes assertions like "precarity is caused by neoliberal deregulation" which is certainly an article of faith among left-wing socialists but would be vigorously contested by right-wing capitalists.  right-wingers would likely say that excessive regulation *increases* precarity by making it impossible to fire regular full-time workers, encouraging employers to hire lots of temporary workers.  you see this exact problem in India, where it has traditionally been nearly impossible to lay off workers in a company with over 600 employees, with the result that most companies have an army of "temporary" workers who are in fact full-time permanent employees but have no benefits.  i am not a right-winger but i can clearly see that this page needs serious rewriting for it to remove the left-wing bias.  in some parts it appears to privilege the views of the radical left by containing viewpoints from "syndicalists" and "Trotskyists" and such with no countervening more-mainstream viewpoints.  overall there is little or no criticism of the left-wing concept of precarity -- the right wing would probably criticize the entire concept as described in this article as a left-wing invention, and have a radically different explanation for the observed phenomena described here.  in other words, there is the observed phenomenon of a class of people who are underpaid and lack job security, and the left-wing theories about why this is happening, and the two are completely mixed up in this article. Benwing (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  horribly biased, again 

message: The sub-article approaches from a premise that Christian prescriptions about poverty and the comtemporary employment phenomena do not only share the same nature, despite being in their exclusive fields (normative and descriptive, respectively), but also share a same lineage. Such premises do not hold any ground and are, frankly, nonsensical.  --Vmp4523 (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic origin