Someone(s) have sent out pro-worker messages to unsecured receipt printers connected to the internet

[Silvanus]

Capitalism and communism are not actually counterparts. Capitalism is an economic system. Communism is a social, political, and economic ideology. It is a combined vision of all aspects of society advocating for a utopia of absolute equality.

Much of this could be said about capitalism, too, which affects almost all elements of social and political life. But that's besides the point.

If someone's post doesn't actually require one to be a communist to read or agree with it, then I'm not going to arbitrarily discount it because they are one. That's nonsense.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

A big payout.... straight after they've abolished money.

Yep. That lines up

Well Vaush Inc and Hasan Inc or whatever they've chosen to call their businesses exist and they won't even make them into co-operatives that are partly worker owned so their workers get a share of the profits not merely whatever Vaush and Hasan choose to pay them. Hasan and Vaush have basically used the argument of "Well why should I have to do that and put the supposed principals into practice when regular capitalist companies don't" ignoring the fact there are companies that operate already in the world that aren't spouting about the evil of capitalism and the good of communism which are co-operatives and do give workers a share of the profits.

I doubt the modern incarnation of those pushing for communism even want to abolish money, they just want the system working for them so they have full control over things.

 

[tstorm823]

If someone's post doesn't actually require one to be a communist to read or agree with it, then I'm not going to arbitrarily discount it because they are one. That's nonsense.

It's not about discounting it, it's about understanding it. People don't all see the world the same way, and if you cannot step into the perspective of another person, you won't ever understand what they're saying. Small example: in the Kenosha thread, a user said something about people having to do something different with regards to to riots because the riots over police brutality aren't going to stop. If a pragmatist had made that post, it would be a completely reasonable assessment of the facts as they are, but it wasn't a pragmatist that wrote it, it was Revnak. Knowing Revnak's general understanding of the world allowed me to identify that it was not a solemn assessment of ongoing violence, but rather an active call to continue the violence. If you read everyone's words in your own voice, you understand only yourself.

If you see a post by a communist, you have to read the communism into it or you will not ever understand what they are actually saying. You cannot know if you agree with it without putting the words into a worldview of the author.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It's not about discounting it, it's about understanding it. People don't all see the world the same way, and if you cannot step into the perspective of another person, you won't ever understand what they're saying. Small example: in the Kenosha thread, a user said something about people having to do something different with regards to to riots because the riots over police brutality aren't going to stop. If a pragmatist had made that post, it would be a completely reasonable assessment of the facts as they are, but it wasn't a pragmatist that wrote it, it was Revnak. Knowing Revnak's general understanding of the world allowed me to identify that it was not a solemn assessment of ongoing violence, but rather an active call to continue the violence. If you read everyone's words in your own voice, you understand only yourself.

If you see a post by a communist, you have to read the communism into it or you will not ever understand what they are actually saying. You cannot know if you agree with it without putting the words into a worldview of the author.

This could all be very true. Nevertheless, you are very bad at it.

 

[Trunkage]

Well Vaush Inc and Hasan Inc or whatever they've chosen to call their businesses exist and they won't even make them into co-operatives that are partly worker owned so their workers get a share of the profits not merely whatever Vaush and Hasan choose to pay them. Hasan and Vaush have basically used the argument of "Well why should I have to do that and put the supposed principals into practice when regular capitalist companies don't" ignoring the fact there are companies that operate already in the world that aren't spouting about the evil of capitalism and the good of communism which are co-operatives and do give workers a share of the profits.

I doubt the modern incarnation of those pushing for communism even want to abolish money, they just want the system working for them so they have full control over things.

I dont think Co-ops have to be aligned with communism. You can have customer and supply Co-ops - which still make up mody Co-ops today

 

[Terminal Blue]

It's not about discounting it, it's about understanding it. People don't all see the world the same way, and if you cannot step into the perspective of another person, you won't ever understand what they're saying.

The absolute fucking irony of you saying this while claiming everyone you disagree with is a "communist" and producing elaborate (and by my reading, very incorrect) assessments of their beliefs is just everything.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I dont think Co-ops have to be aligned with communism. You can have customer and supply Co-ops - which still make up mody Co-ops today

yeh, but the supposed modern bread tube capitalism doesn't work communism should be done. They won't even do it for their own businesses. Not even going co-op that isn't full worker owned and controlled just reducing the capitalism exploitation of workers angle so if the company does well everyone profits.

 

[Seanchaidh]

"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." -Karl Marx, New International Version

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." -Karl Marx, New International Version

So much for that with breadtubers, well a number of them lol it's "Why should I do that I made this brand, I should get the benefits, I'm the face of this brand"

 

[Trunkage]

yeh, but the supposed modern bread tube capitalism doesn't work communism should be done. They won't even do it for their own businesses. Not even going co-op that isn't full worker owned and controlled just reducing the capitalism exploitation of workers angle so if the company does well everyone profits.

This is only my opinion, not breadtubes

I don't think Co-ops suit every business. But then I think they should be allowed to rise and fall like most businesses... which includes either giving them the massive tax breaks normal businesses get or getting rid of all tax breaks. To be clear, this would be tax breaks that benefit Co-ops, not just continuing the ones that only benefit normal businesses

 

[tstorm823]

The absolute fucking irony of you saying this while claiming everyone you disagree with is a "communist" and producing elaborate (and by my reading, very incorrect) assessments of their beliefs is just everything.

I don't call anyone a communist who doesn't call themselves communist. I very frequently engage with people about how they aren't communists and have more in common with me than they do a communist. And like, communism came up in this thread because:

Are you communists?
Some of us are.

Like, there's no sense claiming my assessment of people is incorrect with Seanchaidh up there going "This could all be very true". You are claiming my assessment of someone is wrong while that actual person implies that I am not wrong.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

A Specter is haunting Printers......the specter of communism....or socialism...or unionism.....possibly the printer gnomes. The Printer gnomes might be communist, or maybe communards, I'm not really sure.

~~~WwwoooOOOOOOoooooooOOOOOOOoooo!!! ~~~

 

[Silvanus]

It's not about discounting it, it's about understanding it. People don't all see the world the same way, and if you cannot step into the perspective of another person, you won't ever understand what they're saying. Small example: in the Kenosha thread, a user said something about people having to do something different with regards to to riots because the riots over police brutality aren't going to stop. If a pragmatist had made that post, it would be a completely reasonable assessment of the facts as they are, but it wasn't a pragmatist that wrote it, it was Revnak. Knowing Revnak's general understanding of the world allowed me to identify that it was not a solemn assessment of ongoing violence, but rather an active call to continue the violence. If you read everyone's words in your own voice, you understand only yourself.

If you see a post by a communist, you have to read the communism into it or you will not ever understand what they are actually saying. You cannot know if you agree with it without putting the words into a worldview of the author.

But it is about dismissing it. When you bring it up, you don't engage with the content at all; you just call them a communist and that's the end of it.

Should I "read the right-wing religiousness" into every post you write, regardless of whether they're related-- and use that as grounds to ignore the actual content itself?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Like, there's no sense claiming my assessment of people is incorrect with Seanchaidh up there going "This could all be very true". You are claiming my assessment of someone is wrong while that actual person implies that I am not wrong.

but you are so spectacularly bad at doing what you said that you need to do to respond appropriately that you should absolutely stop trying to do that.

Also, could does not imply is.

 

[tstorm823]

But it is about dismissing it. When you bring it up, you don't engage with the content at all; you just call them a communist and that's the end of it.

I write like 8 mile long posts regularly on tiny semantic nuance. I have no idea what you're even on about here.

Should I "read the right-wing religiousness" into every post you write, regardless of whether they're related-- and use that as grounds to ignore the actual content itself?

Other than that last step, which I don't do, I wish you would. I wish people would consider my statements in the context of my perspective. I wish people here would consider the statements of conservatives from the conservative perspective. When people take their own perspective, one where society is failing people and the proper solution is more direct government intervention, and then interpret conservative opinions within that framework, they reach a conclusion where conservatives hate everyone and want people to die. But that's not a thing, because that's not a conservative perspective. A conservative sees society as largely successful at bettering the human condition, and opposes a lot of government activity on the grounds that it will disrupt a working system. Nobody thinks "everything is broken and only the government can fix it, but I got mine and screw everyone else." That's not a real position.

So yes, feel free to read a Catholic and conservative perspective into my posts. Please do.

 

[tstorm823]

Also, could does not imply is.

It does in certain contexts. Your post is one of those contexts. You would not have said that it could be right if you didn't believe that it was. Morover, you would not still be beating around the bush if you could just say honestly that you think I'm wrong there.

 

[Trunkage]

~~~WwwoooOOOOOOoooooooOOOOOOOoooo!!! ~~~

Yeah, go Spec. Get those printers.

They always don't print what I sent to them. They have it coming

 

[Silvanus]

I write like 8 mile long posts regularly on tiny semantic nuance. I have no idea what you're even on about here.

I'm talking about stuff like this. There's more than one or two where someone makes a post, and your response is essentially, "Huh, but why should we take that seriously, you're a communist!"

Other than that last step, which I don't do, I wish you would. I wish people would consider my statements in the context of my perspective. I wish people here would consider the statements of conservatives from the conservative perspective. When people take their own perspective, one where society is failing people and the proper solution is more direct government intervention, and then interpret conservative opinions within that framework, they reach a conclusion where conservatives hate everyone and want people to die. But that's not a thing, because that's not a conservative perspective. A conservative sees society as largely successful at bettering the human condition, and opposes a lot of government activity on the grounds that it will disrupt a working system. Nobody thinks "everything is broken and only the government can fix it, but I got mine and screw everyone else." That's not a real position.

So yes, feel free to read a Catholic and conservative perspective into my posts. Please do.

Why should I believe you? You're a right-wing Christian!

 

[tstorm823]

I'm talking about stuff like this. There's more than one or two where someone makes a post, and your response is essentially, "Huh, but why should we take that seriously, you're a communist!"

I fully disputed his comment before mentioning communism. The " And a lot of Americans of any and all races are proud to be American " part can stand on its own. I did not just call him a communist and ignore the post, I fully answered his post before calling out his motives. That's not dismissal.

Seanchaidh was wrong there to suggest that non-white people do not share in the American identity, full stop.
But also, Seanchaidh is abhorrent there because he actively wants to break apart that shared national identity, because communism does not believe in nations, and he's willing to exploit and exacerbate racial tensions to do so.

So I did not dismiss his comment because it was communism, I responded to the words themselves first, and then pointed to the poison behind the words when you recognize the desires of the person writing them.

Edit: If ObsidianJones had suggested there that non-white people don't share in the American identity, it would mean something entirely different. It would be a sorrowful comment, wishing we could all be united that way, but believing that we are not. A communist who wants America deleted from the map is not sad to suggest that minorities are excluded from the nation, and it's important to see that distinction.

 

[Silvanus]

Seanchaidh was wrong there to suggest that non-white people do not share in the American identity, full stop.

He didn't, though. You've let your prejudicial notion of how awful he is exaggerate and twist the statement he did make.

And that's where the problem lies. You don't actually know what communism entails, or at least you don't seem to; you've come out with some ridiculous mischaracterisations before, about how they want to abolish the family or want everyone to be miserable serfs or what-have-you.

You can interpret someone's posts in the context of their ideology... IF you've got the faintest interest in understanding what that ideology means to them, and not a monstrous pantomime villain version you're projecting onto them.