An out of place argument can be misapplied to "discredit" anything. So is what you did there any "smarter"? This isn't both sideism. It's a simple observation

An out of place argument can be misapplied to "discredit" anything. So is what you did there any "smarter"? This isn't both sideism. It's a simple observation on the state of things. Now this state could be propagated by one side, and I could certainly name which side I think it is. Then what? Are we any closer to the earnest discussion I proposed? Or have I just propagated the narrative I'm critiquing that prevents that discussion? So, my point was deliberately meta--a commentary on the logjam that has prevented solutions to the problem stated by my parent. Did you have an actual response to that? Or are you just in a bad mood? Because, I then proposed we need a discussion around creating a version of capitalism that is sane (which I am happy to define, but that wasn't my point). You are either claiming that's morally tantamount to a pro slavery argument or you're being deliberately disingenuous. EDIT: My original comment could've been clearer. Please see "EDIT" there. That's my bad. But your slavery comment is still out of line.