I mean, that’s not entirely true. If they’re using your input as training data then you might be training it to be abusive to other users, which could cause harm.
Not that that falls on you to address. Just pointing out that I’m theory someone could get hurt.
No, we don’t know every single word.
But I think that isn’t really what most people are actually shocked about with regards to kanji…
The thing that is shocking about kanji is “how do you even pronounce words you don’t know? How do you even try to tell someone ‘i saw this word I didn’t know.’ when it’s a bespoke character for just that word?”
They don’t realize that most kanji are built by combining different characters. So if you know the base characters that a kanji is built from. you can make a reasonable guess at pronunciation (and sometimes meaning) even if you’ve never seen the word before.
In English, we learn from a young age to “sound it out”. At first glance, kanji makes no sense in that context. We can’t understand how you would “sound out” a new kanji
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”.
Maybe I’m not remembering how they work correctly, but I thought sliderules and abacus…es…abacuses? abacii?.. just helped you repeat operations and keep track of the work you’d done, rather than executing mathematical functions for you
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.”
Interestingly, this phrase was really only plausibly used for about 33 years - the time between the first fully electronic calculator and the first smartphone.
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
Whatever you say, chief
I’m not commenting for your benefit, but for the others who might stumble upon this thread
“Too many words” is the response of a disinterested child who views engaging in conversation like eating their vegetables.
Go back to your YouTube shorts I guess.
The fact that you only called out the four surnames that are most visible on social media and the news says a lot about where you get your info, tbh.
No mention of the Waltons. Or the Kochs. None of the hedge fund managers, or Blackstone leadership. Or any of the dozens of other families and organizations that have been manipulating global politics for over a hundred years.
And the silly name-calling makes you look really immature btw. Say “fucking Zuckerberg” like an adult instead of sound-bite nicknames that put you on the same level as MAGA hate parrots.
As with the other comments you’ve made, you’re just saying words without understanding their meaning.
I understand rhetoric very well.
Stating an intentionally limited or cherry-picked set of facts with the intent to deceive can be a rhetorical ploy, but that’s genuinely not what the OC did, by a long shot. They fairly honestly break down (one of) the actual problem(s) with capitalism and how we wound up where we are.
From my perspective, you are the naive one, looking for simple narratives to pin your arguments on, and denying attempts to engage with the nuance of human behavior and history.
Life is complicated and trying to fit everything into a tidy little “capitalism bad” box isn’t going to produce the results you hope.
You’re just saying words without meaning at this point. I’m sure it feels good to put a label on something you don’t like but you have done nothing to communicate what you actually intend in an effective way.
Do you think wealth inequality was achieved through the behaviors of the insane? These systems were purpose built to function a certain way for the benefit of certain people. It was incredibly sane, just selfish.
Generational wealth inherited from people who benefitted from immoral systems is a fundamentally problematic system. Breaking down the logic behind it is not “sane-washing” or whatever unless it comes with opinions on the merit or fairness of the problematic elements.
Quite the contrary, the OC did not offer any opinion on whether these things were fair or “okay”. They only fleshed out the specific logic used in the creation of these systems.
in what way is describing how a system works pro anything?
The best systems are those that analyze the practical processes and outcomes and optimize for distributed prosperity regardless of the individual component processes’ economic model.
Some systems make sense to be capital-driven because of the massive initial investment required to ship the first product for things that are luxury-only (movies, etc)
Other systems should NEVER be capital-driven because they are tied to basic human needs and rights (health-care, education, etc)
The first step towards reaching the best system for everyone to attain a minimum level of prosperity that scales upward based on their own desire for additional luxury is breaking down existing systems to identify the exact places where they fail, so we can be selective about how build systems going forward and intelligently implement safeguards when we choose one system vs another for a given vertical.
it’s almost like the economic model name we give it is irrelevant and we should instead be focused on processes and outcomes 🤔
a) the other reply makes the point about men feeling internalized societal pressure to appear “tough”
b) you need to assess your biases that made you assume the OC was taking a shot at women, or even a shot at either gender. You jumped directly to the worst possible interpretation when there are many other ways to read the OC’s intent
also turned very purple, so maybe lack of oxygen made him an idiot?
Or men as a group lie and minimize their own discomfort?
Why jump immediately to the worst possible interpretation?
frankly, given our patriarchy and internalized misogyny it’s far more likely the men are lying - or more precisely, deluding themselves - to protect their ego
“Oh no, the consequences of my actions!”