A commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing; a popular conception about a real person or event which exaggerates or idealizes reality.
I’d point out that I provided a concept used to explain things we’ve observed in economics for a long time.
You are challenging this as though it’s my opinion.
I think you, and the points you are pulling from the information—I provided to you, none the less—are seeing this as a binary drive of economic inflation as though “it is” or “it is not”, when the whole concept works as, “it is here, it is not here, it is of influence here, it is something else here”. i.e. a contributing factor that has scalable influence in a bigger picture.
Also, just because my example of a theory so happened to be a “scientific” theory, you didn’t need to go barreling down that path all on your own. I don’t see what supplying the definition of scientific theories has to do with anything here, but 👍
Okay, it seems we were ever on the same page to begin with and I apologise if it’s caused confusion and time of your day to be wasted. It was never my intent to have you use so much energy on something so useless and I feel responsible for encouraging it with replying.
Well, you are promoting ideas that antagonize worker interests, in a socialist community. It may be expected, and rightfully so, that you would encounter resistance.
The comments quite exactly resemble those promulgated by reactionary sources that help oligarchs maintain their power.
If you are interested genuinely in exploring the best strategies for workers to make gains, then please consider the importance of the sources you invoke being ones that can be understood as reliable and robust, as well as generally independent from hegemonic institutions and ideals.
It is an accurate characterization that you have been promoting ideas antagonist to worker interests, because the natural and obvious reading of your comments is for workers to be discouraged from demanding higher wages. In fact, the language you supported is indistinguishable from that used by right wing outlets whose intention is to keep the working class repressed.
If you have a different narrative, then it is important that you present it as explicitly as possible.
At present, you seem to be suggesting that governments care about workers, which is obviously mistaken.
If you are supporting rhetoric that encourages workers to act against their own interests, then you are not supporting workers, and you will not find friends in a socialist space.
If you have deeper insight or analysis that credibly supports the interests of the working class, then you carry the burden of distinguishing your ideas clearly from those that have been employed to repress workers.
You should not expect anyone to treat you as someone different from whom you resemble, or to sympathize with ideas that have already been rejected.
I read the article.
The discussion is descending even below the level of pointlessness.
You are not even understanding basic terms.
A scientific theory is given as…
In turn, a myth is given as…
The feeling is mutual.
I’d point out that I provided a concept used to explain things we’ve observed in economics for a long time.
You are challenging this as though it’s my opinion.
I think you, and the points you are pulling from the information—I provided to you, none the less—are seeing this as a binary drive of economic inflation as though “it is” or “it is not”, when the whole concept works as, “it is here, it is not here, it is of influence here, it is something else here”. i.e. a contributing factor that has scalable influence in a bigger picture.
Also, just because my example of a theory so happened to be a “scientific” theory, you didn’t need to go barreling down that path all on your own. I don’t see what supplying the definition of scientific theories has to do with anything here, but 👍
You are being incredibly dishonest, given the context.
Hm?
Okay, it seems we were ever on the same page to begin with and I apologise if it’s caused confusion and time of your day to be wasted. It was never my intent to have you use so much energy on something so useless and I feel responsible for encouraging it with replying.
Much peace.
Well, you are promoting ideas that antagonize worker interests, in a socialist community. It may be expected, and rightfully so, that you would encounter resistance.
The comments quite exactly resemble those promulgated by reactionary sources that help oligarchs maintain their power.
If you are interested genuinely in exploring the best strategies for workers to make gains, then please consider the importance of the sources you invoke being ones that can be understood as reliable and robust, as well as generally independent from hegemonic institutions and ideals.
deleted by creator
It is an accurate characterization that you have been promoting ideas antagonist to worker interests, because the natural and obvious reading of your comments is for workers to be discouraged from demanding higher wages. In fact, the language you supported is indistinguishable from that used by right wing outlets whose intention is to keep the working class repressed.
If you have a different narrative, then it is important that you present it as explicitly as possible.
At present, you seem to be suggesting that governments care about workers, which is obviously mistaken.
deleted by creator
If you are supporting rhetoric that encourages workers to act against their own interests, then you are not supporting workers, and you will not find friends in a socialist space.
If you have deeper insight or analysis that credibly supports the interests of the working class, then you carry the burden of distinguishing your ideas clearly from those that have been employed to repress workers.
You should not expect anyone to treat you as someone different from whom you resemble, or to sympathize with ideas that have already been rejected.