ignore the disingenuous troll. The “just a question” reframe is the oldest rhetorical trick in the book. Shifting the argument to something they can easily attack instead of engaging with your actual argument is a tale as old as time.
I recommend you just restate the original point and reject their premise outright
There is no part of the OC that suggests a positive or negative moral or ethical assessment of the behaviors they described.
That is an easier argument to attack than what was actually described (a series of cause and effect), projected onto the scenario provided in the OC.
Acknowledging the motivations and logic of others, even those you disagree with, is not an endorsement of them. It is a fact that what OC described is how the history of capitalism played out in practice (with a large spoonful of corrupt lobbying to drive those wages down and profits for capital holders up).
I hope that clears things up. You weren’t “just asking a question”. You were presuming a specific answer and asking them to verify your presumption. If you were genuinely asking a question about how it was read, you could have easily said “I read the OC to imply that workers should be exploited. Is that the fact you’re referring to? I ask because that seems too callous to be true.”
There is no part of the OC that suggests a positive or negative moral or ethical assessment of the behaviors they described.
I strongly disagree. Here are some examples of what I read as setting up what the capitalist was saying as positive:
“That seems like it was a risk.”
“That seems like a lot of work.”
“Nobody paid me, I hoped to get paid once I could start selling products.”
“So, really, it’s oversimplifying to say that you do nothing, and the worker does everything.”
“Yeah, he makes what I tell him to make, but I figure out how much to charge, where to sell it, where to buy the raw materials, basically everything about the business other than operating the machine.”
That is an easier argument to attack than what was actually described (a series of cause and effect), projected onto the scenario provided in the OC.
I didn’t attack it. I said I didn’t know if it was positive or negative, because it presents the capitalist as reasonable while he says vile things about the workers.
Acknowledging the motivations and logic of others, even those you disagree with, is not an endorsement of them. It is a fact that what OC described is how the history of capitalism played out in practice (with a large spoonful of corrupt lobbying to drive those wages down and profits for capital holders up).
I honestly don’t know if we are talking about the same OC. Do you mean the top comment on the chain or the image in the post?
I hope that clears things up. You weren’t “just asking a question”.
I certainly didn’t frame it as “just asking questions.” I was genuinely confused when I was asked:
where do you see such statement in the comment i reacted to? some red circles would help.
When the comment the reacted to (replied to) was mine.
I finally figured it out that they meant “where in my reply did I say that”.
You were presuming a specific answer and asking them to verify your presumption.
As I have explained already, I was stating how I read it and asking if this is what they were referring to as true.
If you were genuinely asking a question about how it was read, you could have easily said "I read the OC to imply that workers should be exploited. Is that the fact you’re referring to? I ask because that seems too callous to be true.
I think it’s absurd to tell people how they should communicate online. I’m sure that wording would have been clearer to you, but it’s not the intuitive wording to me. Not everyone speaks english the same way. That’s why it’s better to assume good intent and ask questions.
Every single line you quoted is an accurate representation of how capitalism works, independent of whether you think it’s good/evil.
The only one you get partial credit for is the last quote, because modern capitalists are so divorced from everyday operations that even those things are farmed out to other employees.
You hold a large amount of responsibility for how your readers/listeners interpret your words. It is neither fair not effective communication to phrase things however you like and then wash your hands of the interpretation.
Your phrasing used an extremely common manipulation tactic, whether you meant to or not (asking a question with a premise that has not been established, e.g. “when did you start beating your wife?” when nobody has established I’m even married). That’s on you, not the reader, to fix.
Though I don’t fully believe you’re being genuine here or your very first response when countered would have been “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to offend, what I meant was X”.
Look, communication online is hard. If you want to be angry, I can’t stop you.
You said
it is a fact. facts are not pro- or anti- something, they just are.
To which I replied:
It’s true that capitalists deserve to exploit workers?
Which is asking if you believe this to be true.
The text I couldn’t tell was pro capitalism or not presents the idea that the capitalists deserve to alienate workers from their work (the exploitation), and that the worker is too stupid and prejudiced to understand his own interests. So when someone says it’s the truth, I’m wondering if they agree with it or they view it as satire or something. Because I don’t know, I ask.
Anyways, I hope capitalism helps you be less mad on the internet. It can’t be good for you.
Where did I say you said anything?
i hope you are not going to play the game of “i did not say that, i was just asking”, because that would be pathetically lame.
ignore the disingenuous troll. The “just a question” reframe is the oldest rhetorical trick in the book. Shifting the argument to something they can easily attack instead of engaging with your actual argument is a tale as old as time.
I recommend you just restate the original point and reject their premise outright
What argument? They said the text was the truth and I asked if they understood it to mean the same thing I did.
There is no part of the OC that suggests a positive or negative moral or ethical assessment of the behaviors they described.
That is an easier argument to attack than what was actually described (a series of cause and effect), projected onto the scenario provided in the OC.
Acknowledging the motivations and logic of others, even those you disagree with, is not an endorsement of them. It is a fact that what OC described is how the history of capitalism played out in practice (with a large spoonful of corrupt lobbying to drive those wages down and profits for capital holders up).
I hope that clears things up. You weren’t “just asking a question”. You were presuming a specific answer and asking them to verify your presumption. If you were genuinely asking a question about how it was read, you could have easily said “I read the OC to imply that workers should be exploited. Is that the fact you’re referring to? I ask because that seems too callous to be true.”
I strongly disagree. Here are some examples of what I read as setting up what the capitalist was saying as positive:
I didn’t attack it. I said I didn’t know if it was positive or negative, because it presents the capitalist as reasonable while he says vile things about the workers.
I honestly don’t know if we are talking about the same OC. Do you mean the top comment on the chain or the image in the post?
I certainly didn’t frame it as “just asking questions.” I was genuinely confused when I was asked:
When the comment the reacted to (replied to) was mine.
I finally figured it out that they meant “where in my reply did I say that”.
As I have explained already, I was stating how I read it and asking if this is what they were referring to as true.
I think it’s absurd to tell people how they should communicate online. I’m sure that wording would have been clearer to you, but it’s not the intuitive wording to me. Not everyone speaks english the same way. That’s why it’s better to assume good intent and ask questions.
Every single line you quoted is an accurate representation of how capitalism works, independent of whether you think it’s good/evil.
The only one you get partial credit for is the last quote, because modern capitalists are so divorced from everyday operations that even those things are farmed out to other employees.
You hold a large amount of responsibility for how your readers/listeners interpret your words. It is neither fair not effective communication to phrase things however you like and then wash your hands of the interpretation.
Your phrasing used an extremely common manipulation tactic, whether you meant to or not (asking a question with a premise that has not been established, e.g. “when did you start beating your wife?” when nobody has established I’m even married). That’s on you, not the reader, to fix.
Though I don’t fully believe you’re being genuine here or your very first response when countered would have been “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to offend, what I meant was X”.
Look, communication online is hard. If you want to be angry, I can’t stop you.
You said
To which I replied:
Which is asking if you believe this to be true.
The text I couldn’t tell was pro capitalism or not presents the idea that the capitalists deserve to alienate workers from their work (the exploitation), and that the worker is too stupid and prejudiced to understand his own interests. So when someone says it’s the truth, I’m wondering if they agree with it or they view it as satire or something. Because I don’t know, I ask.
Anyways, I hope capitalism helps you be less mad on the internet. It can’t be good for you.