I don’t understand this reply.

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.

What argument? They said the text was the truth and I asked if they understood it to mean the same thing I did.

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.

Because it’s presented in such a villainous manner.

It’s true that capitalists deserve to exploit workers?

Where did I say you said anything?

Does react mean reply? You replied to my comment which was

I can’t tell if this is pro or anti capitalist tbh

Maybe you replied to the wrong comment?

It’s true that capitalists deserve to exploit workers?

I meant because the trope of the poors being ignorant racists was a bit too hard to believe someone would want to admit to.

“Yeah, that might work. But, here’s the kicker. He voted for the same guy I did. The other candidate was promising tax reforms, enforcing anti-monopoly laws, etc. But, my guy got everyone scared about trans athletes and brown people crossing the border. My worker’s a good guy, but he’s super racist. As long as you’re going after the brown people, that’s what matters to him.”

I can’t tell if this is pro or anti capitalist tbh

How do you turn “both the republicans and the democrats are interested in protecting rich and powerful people who harm children” to “you should vote for the republicans”?

What’s both sides about this?

If the republicans are sweeping this under the rug because they are proven nazis and rampant profiles, why did the democrats sweep it under the rug?

No, I didn’t address this scenario. It’s not really relevant to why I think some of the situations presented are unethical, but I’m happy to chime in.

I don’t think letting people volunteer for a task that will certainly result in their death is inherently unethical. I also don’t think people who volunteer for long or one way space missions are volunteering to die. They are volunteering to die in space. They are accepting that their life may be shorter than on earth, and accepting that it’s a one way trip.

Sure, if they volunteer to go up in a vessel that isn’t coming back, and the vessel relies on a finite supply of life sustaining things with no plan to accept deliveries or seek out sources, then I can accept that is volunteering for a task that will be the cause of your death. That’s a bit more concerning for me because of the time periods involved. A person could change their mind but have to live years and years knowing they cannot survive their choice.

Yes, exactly!

(Maybe I’d say stealing or obtaining through coercion but why get too picky, eh?)

Customers give the business money for the goods. It could be directly to the boss, or other employees of the business. When we say the customer pays the boss in this case, “pay” refers to an uneven relationship between the customer, the business, and the boss. The business has a product that the customer doesn’t have or doesn’t have the means to produce, so they give the business money to obtain it. In this relationship, it is considered appropriate for the company to charge more than it costs to produce the good. The price is set by the boss, who decides what profit is achievable, and what they are willing to do to maximize that.

In the poem the worker is said to pay the boss because the employee is in a similar position as the customer. In this case, they are giving the boss a higher value than they are receiving from the boss. They are exchanging their labour and the finished goods in exchange for two items the boss has a monopoly on: money (which is required to obtain goods in a system where you are alienated from the fruits of your labour), and access to the means of production.

You could simplify the “labour and the finished goods” for surplus labour value. I hear some guy wrote some compelling books about how many yards of linen a coat is worth. Might be worth a gander.

As 10 dollars would be revenue, not profit

It does not specify what the $10 is a measure of.

Virginia Giuffee didn’t kill herself

Tell me more?

That’s my entire case though: It is unethical to choose methods of rescue or other emergency responses that are less effective than the other available methods.

Maybe I’m missing your point but I don’t think you quite understand mine: the replies that are saying it would be ineffective are also saying it’s unethical.

Whereas I focused on it being unethical because it’s cruel to the suicidal person, it is also an unethical practice because it means knowingly using people who are less effective at these tasks, which harms the people depending on the successful completion of the dangerous work.

I don’t think the people who are focusing on why it’s a bad idea are ignoring the focus on ethics, tbh. It’s unethical to do this because it puts others at risk too.