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 think a Wikipedia article detailing a concept should be more than enough. At no point did I mention anything against workers. At no point did I support unethical employers. That’s entirely an assumption born in your mind that was the immediate conclusion and means for attack.
How you came to that assumption has nothing to do with me. But, as you know, it turned out that it couldn’t have been more wrong.
How more could someone prepare for a mind like that? Why should they? We are all strangers and I wouldn’t know what buttholes to start covering with pages of disclaiming footnotes, “just in case someone’s brain does this”.
The time of day given is me pooping, wasting time, or waiting for something. I can respect people have more to give, but I’d appreciate their energy spent pondering a little before participating.
The language you chose is language whose most natural and obvious effect is to discourage workers from advancing their interests, of demanding higher wages.
A choice whose effect is against worker interests is one that rightfully will be resisted.
Someone insisted that workers demanding higher wages would not help them improve their conditions, and your response in the thread was generally approving of the position.
The broader effect of your comment is to discourage workers from attempting to advance their interests, of demanding higher wages.
Your comment received negative reactions, as you should expect.
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.
I think a Wikipedia article detailing a concept should be more than enough. At no point did I mention anything against workers. At no point did I support unethical employers. That’s entirely an assumption born in your mind that was the immediate conclusion and means for attack.
How you came to that assumption has nothing to do with me. But, as you know, it turned out that it couldn’t have been more wrong.
How more could someone prepare for a mind like that? Why should they? We are all strangers and I wouldn’t know what buttholes to start covering with pages of disclaiming footnotes, “just in case someone’s brain does this”.
The time of day given is me pooping, wasting time, or waiting for something. I can respect people have more to give, but I’d appreciate their energy spent pondering a little before participating.
I made no assumption about you.
The language you chose is language whose most natural and obvious effect is to discourage workers from advancing their interests, of demanding higher wages.
A choice whose effect is against worker interests is one that rightfully will be resisted.
deleted by creator
The current context is social media.
Someone insisted that workers demanding higher wages would not help them improve their conditions, and your response in the thread was generally approving of the position.
The broader effect of your comment is to discourage workers from attempting to advance their interests, of demanding higher wages.
Your comment received negative reactions, as you should expect.