...whereas the great virtue of communists is they call out their hated minority group for exploiting them based on a stupid unscientific economic theory.
Yes, communists and their arcane superstitious belief in... *checks notes*
the existence of landlords.
Why are you here on TFT? What are you trying to achieve by writing garbage like that? Do you even care whether the things you say are true?
You wrote "*checks notes*"; but that's not true. You didn't get that sarcastic taunt by checking your notes. If you'd checked your notes, you'd have seen that at no point in our exchanges did you tell me landlords exist. If you'd checked your notes, you'd have seen I already called you out for your unscientific belief, and you already
admitted it was unscientific! Your unscientific claim in this thread was "The capitalist belongs to a class of people who don't themselves make or provide any goods and services". That's a superstitious belief. (Not arcane, of course -- it's a rather commonplace idiotic belief -- but then I accused you of being unscientific, not arcane.) You are choosing to rewrite history and insinuate to our readers that I was criticizing you for claiming landlords exist, even though I didn't do that and you know perfectly well that I didn't do that. So you are playing to the crowd, not arguing. Your option of course, but if you persist I'll keep calling you on it. Of course, in your mind it's an article of faith that landlords don't provide any services and isn't anything you feel needs defending. But it's simply a superstitious belief.
But by all means, prove me wrong. Show how you can logically derive the conclusion "Landlords don't provide any services." from the perfectly scientific premise that "Landlords exist."
Everyone who engages in bigotry has a justification for it that seems convincing to him. ... The reason you think your outgroup's oppressiveness is real and somebody else's outgroup's oppressiveness is imagined is because your outgroup is yours.
In that sense, it can never be justified at any point in history to complain about oppression and to identify a common trait shared by the oppressors.
How are you getting that? If your complaint is justified you could always distinguish between communism and antisemitism by producing a
substantive argument showing capitalisthood causes one to oppress. You skipped that part.
Why am I not surprised that your spicy take has the effect of neutering any deviations from the status quo.
You also skipped the part where you show that the only possible way of deviating from the status quo is by scaring away somebody's outgroup.
It's like Edmund Burke popped out of his coffin to ejaculate all over my computer screen.
Which Edmund Burke are you comparing me to, the Edmund Burke who called out Parliament for its oppressive behavior against Americans, or the Edmund Burke who correctly forecast that the French Revolution was going to turn out badly?
So now the truth comes out! Even beloved father of conservatism
Edmund Burke was no more than an unscientific bigot! He committed the cardinal sin of labeling a group of people who were oppressing another group of people using the crude epithet "pArLiAmEnT" (his capitalization, taken from graffiti left on the wall of his shrine to aristocracy)
You do know, don't you, that Burke was a
member of that parliament? You do know, don't you, that a parliament acts as a unit, by
voting? Burke was trying to argue enough of his fellows into changing their minds to make the vote go the other way; he was not labeling parliament members as oppressors wholesale. Burke understood the difference between collective and individual accusations. "I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people."
(Incidentally, it's odd that he's called the father of conservatism. He was
a Whig. They had a whole Tory party for conservatives.)
ME: I like to take walks sometimes
BOMB#20: Yeah, you know who else used his feet to get from place to place? Mussolini. And for remarkably similar reasons: to transport his body to a different location in order to perform some sort of activity in the new location. Bet you feel really fascist right about now.
And you think that's an intelligent analogy, why? Because walking is a completely benign activity that never killed millions of people, just like preaching "The capitalist belongs to a class of people who don't themselves make or provide any goods and services" is a completely benign activity that never killed millions of people?
Yes, I would say they are about equal in that regard.
Well, just because in your mind you're able to simply brush off the eighty-odd million people who got murdered in the 20th century by the brainwashing victims of the communism meme and pretend to yourself that their deaths have no connection to people preaching communism, that doesn't make your analogy more than the steaming pile of dingos' kidneys that it is.
Or because everybody transports his body to a different location in order to perform some sort of activity in the new location, just like everybody subscribes to some version of the forever-popular "The solution to our problems is to get rid of those people." ideology?
Everybody poops.
Indeed so; but not everybody blames the world's troubles on a conveniently identifiable outgroup.
Look, if you disagree with what I said then you can refute it instead of talking about how it shouldn't be said because it triggers you. The tactic you're engaging in with your white-hot magma take on class division is as old as the hills; pity the oppressors for being called out on their oppressive behavior by comparing them to people who were actually oppressed.
Oh for the love of god. In the first place, you are assuming your oppressor conclusion as a premise. And in the second place, communists of all people are in no position to complain about comparing their targets with "people who were actually oppressed". You guys lost any standing to make that argument when you rounded up your so-called "oppressor class" and tied them together into convenient human balls of ten or twenty and threw them into the Mekong to drown. What you are trying to unleash on the world is a bioweapon that infects brains.
Of course most of the people communists murder aren't even capitalists -- they're the bystanders too poor to run away from the famines you cause.
Trump does it all the time. Incels gamers who complain about not having girlfriends do it all the time. Exhibit A, and the proper response to Exhibit A:
...
You're not saying anything different.
That's an empty insult.
It's a distraction strategy to avoid discussing the actual topic. If you can tell me why it's bigoted to point out that the owner of a multinational restaurant franchise does not actually prepare or serve any food, clean tables, wash dishes, or put away produce, and that something about this situation deserves more scrutiny, let's talk about it.
The definition of
chutzpah is you kill your parents and then ask the judge to go easy on you because you're an orphan. Let me remind you, I already tried to have that discussion with you, and
you just blew me off.
But if
now you're willing to have that discussion, very good, better late than never. Please, by all means, feel free to demonstrate that preparing or serving food, cleaning tables, washing dishes, and putting away produce are the only services necessary to keep a restaurant going. Do you feel giving examples of services the owner doesn't supply proves the nonexistence of services she does supply? Do you feel giving examples of any X is a logical way to prove the nonexistence of any Y?
But don't bore us all with handkerchief-wringing parallels that apply equally to Goebbels and that dirty bigoted communist Adam Smith:
Adam Smith said:
"The rich and opulent merchant who does nothing but give a few directions, lives in far greater state and luxury and ease and plenty of all the conveniencies and delicacies of life than his clerks, who do all the business. They too, excepting their confinement, are in a state of ease and plenty far superior to that of the artizan by whose labour these commodities were furnished... Thus he who as it were supports the whole frame of society and furnishes the means of the convenience and ease of all the rest is himself possessed of a very small share and is buried in obscurity. He bears on his shoulders the whole of mankind, and unable to sustain the load is buried by the weight of it and thrust down into the lowest parts of the earth, from whence he supports all the rest."
What's your point? What, you think Adam Smith is a holy prophet? You think quoting him as scripture is an intellectually adequate substitute for showing how to get from "Landlords exist." to "Landlords don't provide any services."?
