WendyTheWillow

6 ms·

31.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
"Work from office" is just "work". That's the default; you go somewhere, provide value in exchange for money, and go home. There was no "shifting" unless you mean pre-capitalistic agrarian societies wher
32.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
It's hardly a caricature, when you realize that by working remotely, you're asking someone else to pay the costs of you not being in the room. Maybe for some it's fine, and that's what your manager can do for you, but i
33.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
It's fascinating to me that "work from home" for many really means, "work from anywhere but the same place your coworkers are." Comments about "separate buildings" and "renting office space" kind
34.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
No, but it does show you need to resort to insult in order to argue, which in turn reveals the weakness of your beliefs and hurts your own advocacy by not putting forward the best form of your argument.
35.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
That’s what we’re discussing; I’m saying that an individual is protected in their speech while operating on behalf of a corporation, and that it’s not corruption. You declaring it so doesn’t make it so. And yes, the individual risks acti
36.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Yes, and the reasoning holds; an individual decides to do that. There’s a name on that check, a specific person who authorizes the transfer of funds. How could you ethically stop a person from authorizing that check?
37.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
But that’s not the claim. A “company” doesn’t speak, individuals do. Just because the individuals do as a result of compensation, doesn’t mean they lose their right to free expression. You’re focusing on the “group” aspect of this, but th
38.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
You may not like their motives or incentives, but I don't see a compelling argument that makes their expression less legitimate than mine.
39.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
What’s not clear to me is why a corporation’s specific governance would matter. When a company “speaks”, it’s still an individual ultimately expressing themselves, just with the benefit of compensation.
40.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
It’s exceptionally hard to financially justify exploration, when so many other problems could see substantial improvement given the costs required.
41.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Clusters of humans cohabiting a confined space? If you squint hard enough…
42.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
You disagree with reality then, because what I'm writing is descriptive and not subject to opinion.
43.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Neither of these things are even remotely related to what the person I replied to suggested, but nice equivocation.
44.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Colloquially perhaps, but it is wrong from a technological perspective, and IMO that matters.
45.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
No, it’s not. Good lord…
46.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
pirate bad yarr
47.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
They gave up the power to forcibly allow abortions. The "government" doesn't operate as a monolith, the executive branch now cannot universally do pro-choice related things.
48.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
This is an exceptionally real example. People invent things all the time and build companies around their ideas. It's not "should", it's "is". This is happening, all over the place, right now.
49.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
> the hypothetical Jimmy would eventually be replaced by someone else who would invent this pencil. As I've seen it historically, here's the crux of your argument. "If not for this employer, some other person would have
50.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
It's not my opinion, it's the only rational conclusion.
51.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
"Prove conclusively" is not how any of this works.
52.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Jimmy didn't do any of those things. The claim was that Jimmy can't produce value, but he did. And even so, the work the people making the pencils for Jimmy would not exist without Jimmy. Jimmy, in yet another way, provides valu
53.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
What ceiling are you talking about? AFAICT there is no earnings or wealth ceiling in the Western world, and there certainly isn't one in the United States.
54.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Again, you rely on the utterly false notion of a "zero-sum" economy, when in fact it may only be possible to pull everyone out of poverty if we allow people to be proportionately rewarded for their contributions.
55.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Quality contribution; thanks for commenting.
56.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
If Jimmy turns a piece of wood and some graphite into a pencil, he has created value. That didn't require exploiting the lumberjack or the miner. Jimmy did not steal value from either. He created value by inventing a new way fo
57.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
I would even argue that "working hard" is dying, if not already dead, as a means of escaping poverty in developed nations. What matters substantially more is working "intelligently," which is even harder for those in pov
58.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
I grant you all of this (for argument's sake). However, none of it actually addresses the merits of the "zero-sum" claim about capitalism or the claim that economic disparity will in the future be regarded in the same way
59.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
A shallow dismissal is less valuable than an excellent critical comment. Please share with me (and others) what's wrong with my thinking. I'm trying to be transparent about my reasoning in child comments, so hopefully, you will
60.
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
No, I'm telling you why it is you agree to copyright, as you seem unaware. Or rather, why a moral version of you would. If you choose to act immorally, fine. But at that point, you're acquiescing to my claim that piracy is im

More ›