4 ms·

I love that a conservative think tank funded by oligarchs has an opinion about morality. I'll take my morality from people who know what that is.

friend_and_foe 3y ago
Attacking the messenger and not the message is probably the easiest way to avoid addressing the message itself, and also the most tired and transparent.
- sambapa 3y ago
  Medium is the message
- corinroyal 3y ago
  Right. As if you thoroughly evaluate all obviously self-serving propaganda thrown your way. This shit wasn't written for me, it was written for stupider people who don't have good heuristics. Billionaires fund propaganda outlets for a reason and it's not truth seeking.
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    I do, yes. You look down on everyone that disagrees with you and do no critical thinking.
    - corinroyal 3y ago
      I didn't notice you doing any critical thinking either, but since you mentioned it, let's do some together and see if the article has any merit. Shall we? The author's argument, such as it is, seems to be that striking workers have no moral right to prevent employers from hiring scabs as this is an infringement on the right of the scab and employer. It's basically bullying, they argue. But in our system it's actually not workers who hold most of the power. That would be the oligarchy or ruling class which owns the vast majority of all their is to own. Unasked by the author is why society should allow so few to control such a large proportion of the resources? Isn't it immoral for so few to have so much while the majority suffers? Isn't it immoral for employers to force workers to compete for crumbs in their own country? Why, yes it is. As citizens, we asked ourselves is there any reason that we should allow oligarchs to hold all the cards? There are some advantages to an entrepreneurial society, but there must be forces to counter the power of the rich or else society will suffer. So as a counterbalance to this power, we grant strikers the right to prevent scabs from being hired. If we did not, employers would enjoy a race to the bottom where everyone in the working classes suffer to a greater extent than the scabs do in this scenario. So the morality of the strikers actions is assured as they are working toward the greater good. This race to the bottom, of course, is the goal of the author. He's carrying water for the oligarchs, who don't want any counterbalance to their unjustified power.The argument is made in bad faith and transparently self-serving. So there you have it. Heuristics work. And no, I'm not responsible for reading all the bullshit bad actors pay to shovel out. The whole point of this firehose of bullshit is not to contribute to legitimate social discourse, but to derail any such discourse from happening in the first place. If the working classes can't conceptualize our relationships to power, then we can't oppose those who hold power unjustly. As a citizen, you should know this. It is on the test.
      - friend_and_foe 3y ago
        That's all good and well, but that still doesn't mean someone has the moral right to striking and preventing scabs from doing their jobs. "Any argument making a different point from the one I want to make is derailing the discussion." You can't just frame a discussion the way you want it to play out and then when other people say wait, there's another aspect ofthis we want to explore, just say they're not part of the discussion. We were having a nice discussion about whether the right to strike is fundamental, moral or absolute, and you are trying to derail it by dismissing it outright, surely you can see that?
        corinroyal 3y ago
        Way to miss the point. The author's trick was to try get us to look at the relationship of strikers to scabs and employers in isolation without considering the totality of the power relationships or the social results of the collective action. This was done to obscure the fact that employers hold the vast majority of power and use it unjustly all the time and to the detriment of all but a tiny minority. So maybe it's not me that's having trouble with critical thinking Maybe championing wrong and regressive billionaire propaganda is not something you need to do, especially since you have no talent for it. None of the points you made held up to scrutiny, and let's be honest, you didn't even make much effort.
- MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  I'm sorry, but I disagree with this assertion. Evaluating the source of any information is the very first part of comprehension, and The Heartland Institute has a very well-established legacy of communicating in extraordinarily bad faith. It's far better to identify deliberately dishonest sources before you start kicking their junk around in your brain.
  - kcplate 3y ago
    > Evaluating the source of any information is the very first part of comprehension No, not comprehension, it has nothing to do with that. You can comprehend a topic presented without alignment with the source. The source may create a bias for how much authority you will give to the argument presented. Perhaps it’s zero, perhaps it’s more and you are willing to put aside a bias against the source to consider the argument.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    It's obvious that none of the people slamming the source here have ever read anything by these groups. You are all long on failed attempts at guilt by association, and short in explaining what any actual problems are. Honestly I think all such comments should be considered intellectually incurious and banning offences here, given the pride in aggressive moderation. It's just so tedious that every time someone posts something from a conservative source, half the comments will be exhortations from leftists to automatically ignore the article based on an endless stream of insinuations and ideological babbling. If you have a problem with the article then let's hear it. If you have a problem with the people saying it because they aren't in your tribe, then please butt out of the conversation so the rest of us can have a proper discussion.

friend_and_foe 3y ago

Attacking the messenger and not the message is probably the easiest way to avoid addressing the message itself, and also the most tired and transparent.

sambapa 3y ago
Medium is the message
corinroyal 3y ago
Right. As if you thoroughly evaluate all obviously self-serving propaganda thrown your way. This shit wasn't written for me, it was written for stupider people who don't have good heuristics. Billionaires fund propaganda outlets for a reason and it's not truth seeking.
- friend_and_foe 3y ago
  I do, yes. You look down on everyone that disagrees with you and do no critical thinking.
  - corinroyal 3y ago
    I didn't notice you doing any critical thinking either, but since you mentioned it, let's do some together and see if the article has any merit. Shall we? The author's argument, such as it is, seems to be that striking workers have no moral right to prevent employers from hiring scabs as this is an infringement on the right of the scab and employer. It's basically bullying, they argue. But in our system it's actually not workers who hold most of the power. That would be the oligarchy or ruling class which owns the vast majority of all their is to own. Unasked by the author is why society should allow so few to control such a large proportion of the resources? Isn't it immoral for so few to have so much while the majority suffers? Isn't it immoral for employers to force workers to compete for crumbs in their own country? Why, yes it is. As citizens, we asked ourselves is there any reason that we should allow oligarchs to hold all the cards? There are some advantages to an entrepreneurial society, but there must be forces to counter the power of the rich or else society will suffer. So as a counterbalance to this power, we grant strikers the right to prevent scabs from being hired. If we did not, employers would enjoy a race to the bottom where everyone in the working classes suffer to a greater extent than the scabs do in this scenario. So the morality of the strikers actions is assured as they are working toward the greater good. This race to the bottom, of course, is the goal of the author. He's carrying water for the oligarchs, who don't want any counterbalance to their unjustified power.The argument is made in bad faith and transparently self-serving. So there you have it. Heuristics work. And no, I'm not responsible for reading all the bullshit bad actors pay to shovel out. The whole point of this firehose of bullshit is not to contribute to legitimate social discourse, but to derail any such discourse from happening in the first place. If the working classes can't conceptualize our relationships to power, then we can't oppose those who hold power unjustly. As a citizen, you should know this. It is on the test.
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      That's all good and well, but that still doesn't mean someone has the moral right to striking and preventing scabs from doing their jobs. "Any argument making a different point from the one I want to make is derailing the discussion." You can't just frame a discussion the way you want it to play out and then when other people say wait, there's another aspect ofthis we want to explore, just say they're not part of the discussion. We were having a nice discussion about whether the right to strike is fundamental, moral or absolute, and you are trying to derail it by dismissing it outright, surely you can see that?
      - corinroyal 3y ago
        Way to miss the point. The author's trick was to try get us to look at the relationship of strikers to scabs and employers in isolation without considering the totality of the power relationships or the social results of the collective action. This was done to obscure the fact that employers hold the vast majority of power and use it unjustly all the time and to the detriment of all but a tiny minority. So maybe it's not me that's having trouble with critical thinking Maybe championing wrong and regressive billionaire propaganda is not something you need to do, especially since you have no talent for it. None of the points you made held up to scrutiny, and let's be honest, you didn't even make much effort.
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
I'm sorry, but I disagree with this assertion. Evaluating the source of any information is the very first part of comprehension, and The Heartland Institute has a very well-established legacy of communicating in extraordinarily bad faith. It's far better to identify deliberately dishonest sources before you start kicking their junk around in your brain.
- kcplate 3y ago
  > Evaluating the source of any information is the very first part of comprehension No, not comprehension, it has nothing to do with that. You can comprehend a topic presented without alignment with the source. The source may create a bias for how much authority you will give to the argument presented. Perhaps it’s zero, perhaps it’s more and you are willing to put aside a bias against the source to consider the argument.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  It's obvious that none of the people slamming the source here have ever read anything by these groups. You are all long on failed attempts at guilt by association, and short in explaining what any actual problems are. Honestly I think all such comments should be considered intellectually incurious and banning offences here, given the pride in aggressive moderation. It's just so tedious that every time someone posts something from a conservative source, half the comments will be exhortations from leftists to automatically ignore the article based on an endless stream of insinuations and ideological babbling. If you have a problem with the article then let's hear it. If you have a problem with the people saying it because they aren't in your tribe, then please butt out of the conversation so the rest of us can have a proper discussion.