unfreeradical @ unfreeradical @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

138

Joined

2 yr. ago

Around the same time, crypto will make traditional money worthless. The only wealthy ones will be those who invested early. Trust me.

I agree.

Do the meanings of words vary or change based on rhetorical stance, cultural context, or historic period?

Are mainstream media and mainstream practices the precedent you understand as the one to guide your choices toward the objectives you identify as meaningful?

The law protects private property.

If you defend the law, how would you overcome the wealth accumulation of billionaires through the legal construct of private property?

There may not be such an event in the foreseeable future, or at any rate, not in the next few days or weeks.

However, the request is not based on a worry about semantics, but rather an observation that language influences how people think and feel.

Preferring language such as claim or steal over earn helps emphasize that workers have an interest in eliminating a class who lives by our labor.

Using language as you have done serves to vindicate the class disparity, to erase the class antagonism, and to protect the interests of the owning class.

Please consider referring to the income of billionaires not as earnings.

Earning is based on achievement or merit. Profits are appropriated, claimed, or stolen, but not earned.

However, for those under certain illusions, exposing that the illusions fail on their merits helps some advance beyond them.

Do you know the original source for the poster? Oldies are goodies. It seems some things never change.

You're really going to be unhappy when Musk becomes crowned as king.

We could say, *We don't need to seize the means of production. We just need to seize the shares from the shareholders."

Such comments seem to sidestep the deeper analysis.

I feel uncomfortable with "money makes money".

Those with money use money to make those without money make money for those with money.

Money and corruption often go hand in hand, regardless of the ruling system.

What do you conclude about rulership, if its interests are separate from the interests of the disempowered?

Where the money from the wealthy flows directly into our governance.

Why do the wealthy leverage state power toward their particular interests, and what do you imagine would stop them from doing so?

stop reversing all the incredible progress made in the 20th century

Why was progress made during certain periods, and why was it later reversed during others?

These problems are all solvable under the current system, it just takes lawmakers who give a flying fuck.

Why are lawmakers indifferent to the struggles of the masses, and what would cause them to become more engaged?

Language is evolving, but not every statement about language is accurate.

The ideas that were expressed are not accurate.

I suppose he must be very frugal with household expenses.

That’s not what I’m referring to though and you know that.

I understand the intended meaning. My objection is against the insistence that the language is being used literally.

No one literally sells one's body. No one ever, not once, has done it.

The observation should be one that is plain and simple, but somehow there is a prevailing need to pretend that the idiom is any more than a derisive characterization of sex work.

The idiom emerged from a historic context that imparted its meaning, through cultural constructs quite distinct from any that have been asserted in the discussion.

It is simply not the case that just as has been said, at various time, of sex workers, that through their work they sell their bodies, so too do construction workers, or any other kind of worker, also sell their bodies.

Sure, but that is true for ever job then. An unknown and hidden confounding factor explaining job choice and the problems of the job can always exist.

The general principle may apply to any job, but you wanted to study the population of sex workers in particular, and doing so requires collecting and analyzing data, in regard to sex workers, properly and sufficiently, toward a conclusion.

I only suggested that your conclusion may not be robust if sex work is disproportionately represented by populations that carry broader vulnerabilities to some of the difficulties that you inferred were directly consequences of sex work.

Right. The remaining possibility is the third variable. Membership in certain populations may be associated with increased likelihood of becoming a sex worker and also of experiencing difficulties that you are suggested are caused directly by being a sex worker. Such difficulties may appear after someone has become a sex worker, even while having an independence cause.

If two effects are correlated, then three possible causal relationships are possible.

A first effect may cause the second, or the second may cause the first, or a so-called third variable may cause both.

It is possible that an individual who has been afflicted by certain difficulties is more likely to participate in sex work.

It is also possible that individuals from certain populations are more likely to participate in sex work, and also, due to being associated with the population, are also more likely to be afflicted by certain difficulties.

Both possibilities must be considered as alternative to sex work causing such difficulties, to explain the correlation.

You insist you understand the concept of an idiom, but you have been consistently unable to apply the concept meaningfully in the current case.

Take an example.

Tie the knot is an idiom for entering into a marriage.

Is it a problem that no one would never deduce the overall meaning simply from the literal semantic content?

Do you have a need to deconstruct it?

Selling one's body is effectively a useless phrase. It had been used pejoratively, historically, to describe sex work. It has no other meaning.

The entire issue should seem very simple.