Workers (maybe) don't deserve more, but people (definitely) deserve better!

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,579
Kin
4,751💸
Kumi
1,380💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
This is going off of the "illustrators deserve more" thread

When it comes to money, especially on a capitalist society, everything has a finite value. So just because intense work goes into something doesn't mean the worker deserves more. I'm not taking any side on this one, but the answer to how much any job should pay can always be found objectively and quickly. It shouldn't be up for much debate.

A point that could be argued though is that much trouble associated with jons arises not from what they pay but what they need to pay for. Rates, taxes, service delivery and crime are what need to be improved by authorities. It is quite likely that if such things were reduced or improved where fitting, even low paying jobs would turn out to pay more than enough for a decent life.


One thing that should be worth note though is how we treat the value of jobs in the first place. Jobs should be valued for more than their monetary output. They should also be valued for the skills and practical contributions they make to society. Someone who has been a carpenter for 20yrs should be able to put their portfolio together, take it to any university and be granted something like a degree in carpentry. What is education, if not passing down the experience of past workers? So one whp has worked and has garnered experience in any field should be considered qualified to a certain degree in their field. Likewise, someone who has been a carpenter should also be allowed to buy furniture at greatly reduced prices since they contribute to the industry. Finally, the carpenter should also get a cross-field qualification in inspection of products, repair-work and marketing (due to knowing what customers want over time) of products in their field. So for any job, especially the practical ones, there should be an educational/certificate qualification it grants based on experience, a social perk beyond company benefits and cross-field qualifications since all aspects of society are connected and related.

This should apply to not only jobs, but to life experience as well. Most people over 40-50yrs should be recognised with something like a diploma in psychology, people who do charity work (directly, hands-on) should have some business management certificate and so on.


Now, by principle, I don't like this idea. It creates mentality that says anything of practical value is recognised with these certificates and perks, which in turn leads to the mentality that anything not formally recognised is worthless. The latter has proven dangerous even in the little form it carries in modern society, with the most fundamental parts of our humanity being such things as emotions and instincts which are looked down upon. The problem is that the capitalistic nature of modern society (or perhaps, the way capitalism has been used/worked out) has pushed social psychology very far in the direction of 'money or bust' that active steps need to be taken to bring people back to a balanced state. After all, governments are not there to be neutral observers but to actively help get the best from and for people in society.
 

Avani

Legendary
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
19,842
Kin
4,644💸
Kumi
320💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Now, by principle, I don't like this idea. It creates mentality that says anything of practical value is recognised with these certificates and perks, which in turn leads to the mentality that anything not formally recognised is worthless.
Not exactly. Certificates is just a claim that the person have certain level of skill in the field, it says. Initial worth of certificate often depends on the reputation of the institution issuing it as they are expected to maintain a standard for issuing it. It's value is in filtering and screening for the right candidate for a job. etc etc.. But all said an done at the end one has to perform on the job. If you can't, you can throw the certificate in the bin.

The latter has proven dangerous even in the little form it carries in modern society, with the most fundamental parts of our humanity being such things as emotions and instincts which are looked down upon.
Huh????. . Good instincts are talent and prized.... no one looks down on them... It still should be polished for maximizing the benefits...

The problem is that the capitalistic nature of modern society (or perhaps, the way capitalism has been used/worked out) has pushed social psychology very far in the direction of 'money or bust' that active steps need to be taken to bring people back to a balanced state. After all, governments are not there to be neutral observers but to actively help get the best from and for people in society.
Eh.... How should it work?
 

Pumpkin Ninja

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
15,493
Kin
431💸
Kumi
2,183💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
My issue with it all is how work and consumption obsessed everything is. The consumption isn't sustainable at all (for humanity or the planet) and the work in most industries seems to be soul-draining and awful for our mental health. The institutions love to preach about how mental health is important but will never bother to look at the issues causing decline in them.

Work schedules are garbage most of the time in low-paying jobs, you're not even given a fixed schedule as you're always up for being harassed by your employers to cover for someone else or your days off are not consecutive so you can't even enjoy them. Customer service is degrading because you can't interact with people like humans, you have your overlords down your neck. You can't even sit down most of the time simply because "it looks lazy". If the work is done or there is nothing to do, you will be told to keep yourself busy and find work somehow, at this point this is just the employer whipping you because it bugs them that you're not slaving the entire time you're there.

Technology has taken a lot of the work out of our hands and yet instead of making our lives easier, we find other ways to abuse people. Everyone is miserable yet all the people crying for solutions are looking in the wrong places or not looking at all. If you ask me it won't get better and a lot of people seriously need to die if we plan on bringing any self-respect back to ourselves.
 

kimb

Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,494
Kin
38💸
Kumi
303💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
what you're advocating for with certifying workers who have certain years of experience in a field is basically finding a way to argue they deserve to get paid more without saying they deserve more. I don't believe anyone in 2021 can arbor a single ounce of anti-worker sentiment that isn't ideologically driven by some social darwinist "survival of the fittest" mentality. workers DO deserve more. they deserve higher wages based on the rate of profit they generate for the firms they work for, they deserve a say at their work place as to how the company is run, and they deserve to be recognized as the foundation that keeps society functioning without some silly certification that says they mean something.

the problem youre trying to address can never be solved without addressing the framework in which the problem is allowed to exist.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: minamoto

Avani

Legendary
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
19,842
Kin
4,644💸
Kumi
320💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
. they deserve higher wages based on the rate of profit they generate for the firms they work for, they deserve a say at their work place as to how the company is run, and they deserve to be recognized as the foundation that keeps society functioning without some silly certification that says they mean something.
Sure. Being a worker means they all have a say in how to run a company, regardless of their individual merit and capabilities. And it will also encourage new people to take risk to start their own business with minimum reward and follow advice from the people who do not want to take any risk of starting business themselves but much tell the businessman how he should run it. It will ensure that the source of the problem is taken care of for good. Workers can move on to advice a new company how it should run while the first owner is trying to find ways how to pay the debts left behind.

Story of many industrial cities biting the dust thanks to such lofty ideals. Then the towns complain no one is investing in them...
 

kimb

Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,494
Kin
38💸
Kumi
303💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Sure. Being a worker means they all have a say in how to run a company, regardless of their individual merit and capabilities. And it will also encourage new people to take risk to start their own business with minimum reward and follow advice from the people who do not want to take any risk of starting business themselves but much tell the businessman how he should run it. It will ensure that the source of the problem is taken care of for good. Workers can move on to advice a new company how it should run while the first owner is trying to find ways how to pay the debts left behind.

Story of many industrial cities biting the dust thanks to such lofty ideals. Then the towns complain no one is investing in them...
Yeah, this is super vague and hesitant.

The degree to which a worker has a say in their company should be relegated to their sphere of influence, along with a say in how the company is structured from the top in terms of leadership. What does that look like?

It looks like work place democracy regarding decisions being made on the ground level localized to say a given department, regarding work structure, electing management, etc. This is not saying that a janitor at a firm has equal say on how the annual budget for the company is spent, this is to say that a janitor, along with his coworkers, would get to choose who the head of their department is, would get to make decisions on how sanitization at the work place is structured whether they believe through their experience that it would be best for cleaning shifts to revolve around teams cleaning the store department by department rather than doing full sweeps across the store throughout the day. And this democracy would scale up to the head of the company, so workers choose their managers, managers choose their higher ups, and so on and so forth.

I have no idea what you're making reference to about industrial cities biting the dust because of lofty ideals. What I'm talking about is far too scarcely implemented for it to be to blame for the collapse of anything. Things like worker co-ops and work place democracy are incredibly scarce business structures that perform on par with traditional firms, and in some instances better.
 

kimb

Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,494
Kin
38💸
Kumi
303💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Unrealistic.
I understand your cynicism, but trust me when I say this is beyond theory. Codetermination laws, which are basically right of workers to participate in structuring management, have been codified into law as far back as the 70s and 80s in countries like Sweden, Netherlands, and Germany. Workplace democracy legitimizes the worker in the way Infant is concerned, but further more reduces alienation between workers and their labor, has no negative effect on wages, labor, revenue, employment or profitability, and only increases capital investment.

And this is all according to the Oxford quarterly journal of economics if you want to read into it


According to the Bureau of Economic Research,
"Board-level and shop-floor worker representation cause at most small increases in wages, possibly lead to slight increases in job security and satisfaction, and have largely zero or small positive effects on firm performance."


so tl;dr nothing is lost, and the net gain is increased wages, job security, and employer satisfaction.

As for worker co-ops, which are basically democratic workplaces, those have been around since the dawn of the 3rd industrial revolution (19th century), and their success is relative to that of traditional firms. They gain the added bonuses mentioned earlier due to codetermination, and on top of that, co-ops are more resistant to price shocks in markets, and are more likely to survive compared to traditional firms when it comes to getting off the ground at a companies infancy.







The only reason why co-ops aren't as common compared to traditional firms is that they struggle to acquire the starting capital through investors like traditional firms can since there's already a set precedent in favor of traditional firms. So yeah, in conclusion, these are things companies are capable of doing and have proven positive results with no observable negatives. The only negative probably being from the perspective of a CEOs and other upper management who would now have to be accountable to their employees and face being unseated by people employees believe would do a better job at running the company.

But it shouldn't suck or "be scary" to be accountable to employees.
 

kimb

Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,494
Kin
38💸
Kumi
303💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
every factory and workplase need workers what u talk about????..

work is very cool ting if it only last for 3 hourez and half a day..
This unironically.

There's some merit to actually cutting the work day to around 4-6 hours a day rather than 8 while maintaining a relative amount of productivity. Plus I think society can benefit from the largest chunk of our population being the working class, having more free time to themselves. More time with family friends,
pursuing hobbies talents, more opportunity for actual communities to develop.
 

minamoto

Supreme
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
21,837
Kin
23,061💸
Kumi
4,392💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
This unironically.

There's some merit to actually cutting the work day to around 4-6 hours a day rather than 8 while maintaining a relative amount of productivity. Plus I think society can benefit from the largest chunk of our population being the working class, having more free time to themselves. More time with family friends,
pursuing hobbies talents, more opportunity for actual communities to develop.
i read a book of great thinker and he say working 8 houres a day is a scamm and waste of life..its like being slave without learning new skills or hobbies...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pumpkin Ninja

Avani

Legendary
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
19,842
Kin
4,644💸
Kumi
320💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I understand your cynicism, but trust me when I say this is beyond theory. Codetermination laws, which are basically right of workers to participate in structuring management, have been codified into law as far back as the 70s and 80s in countries like Sweden, Netherlands, and Germany. Workplace democracy legitimizes the worker in the way Infant is concerned, but further more reduces alienation between workers and their labor, has no negative effect on wages, labor, revenue, employment or profitability, and only increases capital investment.

And this is all according to the Oxford quarterly journal of economics if you want to read into it


According to the Bureau of Economic Research,
"Board-level and shop-floor worker representation cause at most small increases in wages, possibly lead to slight increases in job security and satisfaction, and have largely zero or small positive effects on firm performance."


so tl;dr nothing is lost, and the net gain is increased wages, job security, and employer satisfaction.

As for worker co-ops, which are basically democratic workplaces, those have been around since the dawn of the 3rd industrial revolution (19th century), and their success is relative to that of traditional firms. They gain the added bonuses mentioned earlier due to codetermination, and on top of that, co-ops are more resistant to price shocks in markets, and are more likely to survive compared to traditional firms when it comes to getting off the ground at a companies infancy.







The only reason why co-ops aren't as common compared to traditional firms is that they struggle to acquire the starting capital through investors like traditional firms can since there's already a set precedent in favor of traditional firms. So yeah, in conclusion, these are things companies are capable of doing and have proven positive results with no observable negatives. The only negative probably being from the perspective of a CEOs and other upper management who would now have to be accountable to their employees and face being unseated by people employees believe would do a better job at running the company.

But it shouldn't suck or "be scary" to be accountable to employees.
Small population which were mostly homogeneous historically. Let's wait till everyone starts asking for representation of all the sections of the society not based on merit but their background. And posts in management also get selected based on popularity or political considerations like "representation" not merit. And none is interested in taking action against a bad worker because they need all the votes for getting that managerial post... Not that homogeneous "democracy " doesn't have some of such issues anyway but everything amplifies with added groups..
 

kimb

Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,494
Kin
38💸
Kumi
303💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Small population which were mostly homogeneous historically. Let's wait till everyone starts asking for representation of all the sections of the society not based on merit but their background. And posts in management also get selected based on popularity or political considerations like "representation" not merit. And none is interested in taking action against a bad worker because they need all the votes for getting that managerial post... Not that homogeneous "democracy " doesn't have some of such issues anyway but everything amplifies with added groups..
Hmm. You can't really point to a difference in race/ethnicity and argue that codetermination wouldn't work elsewhere because of racial/ethnic diversity without first establishing that codetermination and co-ops only work because of racial/ethnic homogeneity.

Codetermination is only codified into law in the countries I named, meaning that firms are legally obligated to have a degree of worker influence over management, but firms that operate via codetermination in the form of co-ops already exist in non-racially/ethnically homogenous populations like in America or Canada, and the largest co-op being Mondragon is international in scale. The only difference is there aren't laws obligating firms to structure themselves with codetermination, so clearly race/ethnicity isn't a barrier to the success or functionality of co-ops.


Maybe you can argue that it's harder to get such such laws in place in countries like America because of a lack of racial/ethnic homogeneity, and I could grant that (more political resource spent towards addressing social issues along racial/ethnic lines means less political resource spent towards workers rights, makes sense), but I don't think that's an argument against having such a system in place. The system is still good.
 

Avani

Legendary
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
19,842
Kin
4,644💸
Kumi
320💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
[COLOR=]Hmm. You can't really point to a difference in race/ethnicity and argue that codetermination wouldn't work elsewhere [/COLOR ][COLOR=rg b(97, 189, 109)]because[/COLOR] of racial/ethnic diversity without first establishing that codetermination and co-ops only work because of racial/ethnic homogeneity.

Codetermination is only codified into law in the countries I named, meaning that firms are legally obligated to have a degree of worker influence over management, but firms that operate via codetermination in the form of co-ops already exist in non-racially/ethnically homogenous populations like in America or Canada, and the largest co-op being Mondragon is international in scale. The only difference is there aren't laws obligating firms to structure themselves with codetermination, so clearly race/ethnicity isn't a barrier to the success or functionality of co-ops.


Maybe you can argue that it's harder to get such such laws in place in countries like America because of a lack of racial/ethnic homogeneity, and I could grant that (more political resource spent towards addressing social issues along racial/ethnic lines means less political resource spent towards workers rights, makes sense), but I don't think that's an argument against having such a system in place. The system is still good.
This font colour is disconcerting. Anyway cooperatives may get success that way. But there are always some limitations and some common goals when a cooperative is founded. I looked up Mondragon.

"Now famous all over the world for its federation of worker co-operatives, the Mondragon co-operative movement was founded by Jose Maria Arizmendiarrieta, a Catholic priest who wanted to assist his congregation in Mondragon, the Basque Country, a town that was at the time recovering from the Spanish Civil War. In 1956 he created a social business based upon the principle of equality. He saw co-operatives as the perfect solution to the town’s unemployment crisis.
Since then, other Christian groups across the world have set up similar co-operative ventures..."


"
law allows for as much as 30% nonmember workers "

mmunity-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/paper-clamp.pdf

So 30% of it's workers have no say in how this company is run...

Just pointing that there are always some limits and considerations for effective management. I have nothing against these cooperatives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kimb

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,579
Kin
4,751💸
Kumi
1,380💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Not exactly. Certificates is just a claim that the person have certain level of skill in the field, it says. Initial worth of certificate often depends on the reputation of the institution issuing it as they are expected to maintain a standard for issuing it. It's value is in filtering and screening for the right candidate for a job. etc etc.. But all said an done at the end one has to perform on the job. If you can't, you can throw the certificate in the bin
Certainly, that is the intended use of a certificate.

But social mentality does not get limited by direct intentions or definitions.


Huh????. . Good instincts are talent and prized.... no one looks down on them... It still should be polished for maximizing the benefits.
The point is on how social mentality works, not on screening processes.

Nonetheless, even the idea of certain instincts being good or bad (in a worker screening process, I presume) can have a knock-on effect in terms social mentality.

Perhaps we come from different environments, but I have often seen people gaslit or downplayed on account of their emotional state when speaking or acting. It was from this that I derived my social mentality points.


Eh.... How should it work?
Continuous active intervention.

When certain factors are noted to have an effect on society that is harmful (such as degrading or devaluing key human aspects/qualities), plans are made to counterbalance the effect. Research and so on will be needed, of course, to understand these factors and how they work.

And with things changing all the time creating a posiibility for factors popping up all the time that negatively affect society, such a task would be continuous, like healthcare.

My issue with it all is how work and consumption obsessed everything is. The consumption isn't sustainable at all (for humanity or the planet) and the work in most industries seems to be soul-draining and awful for our mental health. The institutions love to preach about how mental health is important but will never bother to look at the issues causing decline in them.

Work schedules are garbage most of the time in low-paying jobs, you're not even given a fixed schedule as you're always up for being harassed by your employers to cover for someone else or your days off are not consecutive so you can't even enjoy them. Customer service is degrading because you can't interact with people like humans, you have your overlords down your neck. You can't even sit down most of the time simply because "it looks lazy". If the work is done or there is nothing to do, you will be told to keep yourself busy and find work somehow, at this point this is just the employer whipping you because it bugs them that you're not slaving the entire time you're there.

Technology has taken a lot of the work out of our hands and yet instead of making our lives easier, we find other ways to abuse people. Everyone is miserable yet all the people crying for solutions are looking in the wrong places or not looking at all. If you ask me it won't get better and a lot of people seriously need to die if we plan on bringing any self-respect back to ourselves.
Fully agreed.

The problem is that those in power put profits over people and so their business genuinely feed off of suffering.

Society either has to be massively restructured or undone and rebuilt from the fround up, with each building step being closely monitored for its abusive-usage potential. It is heavily problematic but doing nothing leads to an unbearibly problematic future.
Post automatically merged:

what you're advocating for with certifying workers who have certain years of experience in a field is basically finding a way to argue they deserve to get paid more without saying they deserve more. I don't believe anyone in 2021 can arbor a single ounce of anti-worker sentiment that isn't ideologically driven by some social darwinist "survival of the fittest" mentality. workers DO deserve more. they deserve higher wages based on the rate of profit they generate for the firms they work for, they deserve a say at their work place as to how the company is run, and they deserve to be recognized as the foundation that keeps society functioning without some silly certification that says they mean something.

the problem youre trying to address can never be solved without addressing the framework in which the problem is allowed to exist.
If we say that these perks are simply alternatives to money, then you can say that.

I still want to differentiate them on account of 'you can eat money' and related factors, but I otherwise agree with you.

I am not sure on company running perks beyond insuring human rights are respected - which should be a governmental matter - since that may take away from ownership. Imagine starting a football club, only to have the players you hired on contract decide to change the emblem. It would no longer be yours, would it? I am fully in support of said players deciding to start their own club and leaving yours, though.

With all things being interconnected, truly solving such big issues always involves making changes to everything at every level, so you are correct on the framework point. Even discounting that reason, framework is too fundamental to such things and definitely has to be improved at least.
Post automatically merged:

what you're advocating for with certifying workers who have certain years of experience in a field is basically finding a way to argue they deserve to get paid more without saying they deserve more. I don't believe anyone in 2021 can arbor a single ounce of anti-worker sentiment that isn't ideologically driven by some social darwinist "survival of the fittest" mentality. workers DO deserve more. they deserve higher wages based on the rate of profit they generate for the firms they work for, they deserve a say at their work place as to how the company is run, and they deserve to be recognized as the foundation that keeps society functioning without some silly certification that says they mean something.

the problem youre trying to address can never be solved without addressing the framework in which the problem is allowed to exist.
If we say that these perks are simply alternatives to money, then you can say that.

I still want to differentiate them on account of 'you can eat money' and related factors, but I otherwise agree with you.

I am not sure on company running perks beyond insuring human rights are respected - which should be a governmental matter - since that may take away from ownership. Imagine starting a football club, only to have the players you hired on contract decide to change the emblem. It would no longer be yours, would it? I am fully in support of said players deciding to start their own club and leaving yours, though.

With all things being interconnected, truly solving such big issues always involves making changes to everything at every level, so you are correct on the framework point. Even discounting that reason, framework is too fundamental to such things and definitely has to be improved at least.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kimb

kimb

Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,494
Kin
38💸
Kumi
303💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
This font colour is disconcerting. Anyway cooperatives may get success that way. But there are always some limitations and some common goals when a cooperative is founded. I looked up Mondragon.

"Now famous all over the world for its federation of worker co-operatives, the Mondragon co-operative movement was founded by Jose Maria Arizmendiarrieta, a Catholic priest who wanted to assist his congregation in Mondragon, the Basque Country, a town that was at the time recovering from the Spanish Civil War. In 1956 he created a social business based upon the principle of equality. He saw co-operatives as the perfect solution to the town’s unemployment crisis.
Since then, other Christian groups across the world have set up similar co-operative ventures..."


"
law allows for as much as 30% nonmember workers "

mmunity-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/paper-clamp.pdf

So 30% of it's workers have no say in how this company is run...

Just pointing that there are always some limits and considerations for effective management. I have nothing against these cooperatives.
This font colour is disconcerting. Anyway cooperatives may get success that way. But there are always some limitations and some common goals when a cooperative is founded. I looked up Mondragon.

"Now famous all over the world for its federation of worker co-operatives, the Mondragon co-operative movement was founded by Jose Maria Arizmendiarrieta, a Catholic priest who wanted to assist his congregation in Mondragon, the Basque Country, a town that was at the time recovering from the Spanish Civil War. In 1956 he created a social business based upon the principle of equality. He saw co-operatives as the perfect solution to the town’s unemployment crisis.
Since then, other Christian groups across the world have set up similar co-operative ventures..."


"
law allows for as much as 30% nonmember workers "

mmunity-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/paper-clamp.pdf

So 30% of it's workers have no say in how this company is run...

Just pointing that there are always some limits and considerations for effective management. I have nothing against these cooperatives.
Of course there are limitations and common goals needed. Same is true for traditional firms. I agree and am fully aware. I dont want to give the impression that I'm trying to suggesting co-ops are failproof silver bullets. I'm only pushing that the outcomes of these companies are still far more desirable. I don't get the impression you're against worker democracy, there was cynicism early on, but we're sort of on the same page.

As for Mondragon specifically, it's a international corporation, which at that size requires participation in global markets with foreign non-member laborers who aren't given codetermination, which is definitely not ideal, but all members of Mondragon do still have a say and those benefits still give an edge to Mondragon in terms of better wages, better worker satisfaction, etc. meanwhile traditional firms only consider the opinions of board members and shareholders when it comes to management. International co-op firms are still much more preferable than a traditional firms.

Foreign labor always gets the short end of the stick, which sucks honestly. Solving the broader issues that face foreign labor whether it be something as mild as not being to participate in co-determination as a foreign non-member, or something more serious like severe working conditions and next to nothing pay like with africans who work in cobalt mines and make
ONLY $2 or $3 A DAY, is going to require some local effort, on top of some international effort. I dont think we as individuals can really change the global market in a way that puts an end to labor trafficking, or worker exploitation, that's really just capitalism seeking to make infinite profit by any means necessary. But we can definitely do work on a local level, whether it be participation in local politics or joining a workers right organization.

p.s. glad you love the pink •̀ω•́
it would probably look way better with the dark theme google chrome extension im using
i turned it off for a sec to see what ur seeing and I AM SO SORRRY LMAOO. I wasn't aware how blinding it was.
 
Top