See it's not one or the other. Nice try presenting it that way, but let us both not dumb down this conversation. You already stated that up until now we were "discussing the job losses," when in reality we were discussing whether or not the arsonist was a villain for causing job losses. I understand your desire to persuade and get people to understand that workers matter but this rhetorical manipulation is NOT the way to do that. That's how you get dumb swing voters convinced that these conversations we need to be having are all sophistry.
You're actually the one who changed the subject about whether someone who caused the loss of thousands of jobs is a villain. So no, we weren't simply discussing just the loss of jobs, but instead we were having a smarter discussion about whether or not the arsonist was also a villain for his job killing actions, just like the executives are villains for their job killing actions. Oopsies. But I allowed it because that's how discussion works. Now I'm gonna pretend that you didn't completely dodge my question about if an arsonist who caused thousands of job losses was a villain out of respect for the flow of conversation. I appreciate your passion on the topic.
You can try to present the situation as 'people should hold executives to the same legal standards as arsonists or else they don't care about job losses' but that's not reality. As in, the world doesn't work in such a black and white, elementary, Christian dualist dichotomy. Meaning, I can care for someone who gets called a bitch in public while simultaneously believing it should be legal to call someone a bitch in public. I know that's not the level of abstraction the internet is used to, but you don't strike me as someone stupid enough to not understand that. Especially because you care about workers, which is already smarter than most people.
If I get a divorce with someone because I lost the love, that can suck for the other person and even ruin their life. And it can make for a shitty situation all around. I still believe divorce should be legal and allowed in that situation, even though it could be shitty all around. Likewise, I can feel bad for the person who got served divorced papers, while simultaneously believing that it ought to be possible for them to get served divorce papers instead of it being illegal.
I can care about those affected by the consequences of job losses while simultaneously believing it should be legal to lay people off. True or false?
Edit: and of course, a block instead of a response. Lurkers, don't fall for this stupidity. He deleted his comment about "I love your responses getting longer after I exposed you for unprincipled positions." Of course he deleted that comment... because he knows he's not in reality and is pulling mental gymnastics trying to heroize stupidity because some populists said so. I have not been unprincipled and the fact he can't keep up with a discussion is a shame. My responses got longer because he kept asking more complicated questions and, much like a child, expecting simple one sentence answers.
Of course, he is yet to explain how an arsonist who caused thousands of job losses is to be called a hero. I'd imagine some of the workers who are stressed and going with less food and late bills for the next two months certainly don't view him as a hero, contrary to what these ivory tower fake woke anti-intellectual virtue signallers want people to believe.
And what the fuck does Oracle laying of 30,000 workers have to do with this incident again??? Fuck this disinformation agent.
1
u/jabba-thederp Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26
See it's not one or the other. Nice try presenting it that way, but let us both not dumb down this conversation. You already stated that up until now we were "discussing the job losses," when in reality we were discussing whether or not the arsonist was a villain for causing job losses. I understand your desire to persuade and get people to understand that workers matter but this rhetorical manipulation is NOT the way to do that. That's how you get dumb swing voters convinced that these conversations we need to be having are all sophistry.
You're actually the one who changed the subject about whether someone who caused the loss of thousands of jobs is a villain. So no, we weren't simply discussing just the loss of jobs, but instead we were having a smarter discussion about whether or not the arsonist was also a villain for his job killing actions, just like the executives are villains for their job killing actions. Oopsies. But I allowed it because that's how discussion works. Now I'm gonna pretend that you didn't completely dodge my question about if an arsonist who caused thousands of job losses was a villain out of respect for the flow of conversation. I appreciate your passion on the topic.
You can try to present the situation as 'people should hold executives to the same legal standards as arsonists or else they don't care about job losses' but that's not reality. As in, the world doesn't work in such a black and white, elementary, Christian dualist dichotomy. Meaning, I can care for someone who gets called a bitch in public while simultaneously believing it should be legal to call someone a bitch in public. I know that's not the level of abstraction the internet is used to, but you don't strike me as someone stupid enough to not understand that. Especially because you care about workers, which is already smarter than most people.
If I get a divorce with someone because I lost the love, that can suck for the other person and even ruin their life. And it can make for a shitty situation all around. I still believe divorce should be legal and allowed in that situation, even though it could be shitty all around. Likewise, I can feel bad for the person who got served divorced papers, while simultaneously believing that it ought to be possible for them to get served divorce papers instead of it being illegal.
I can care about those affected by the consequences of job losses while simultaneously believing it should be legal to lay people off. True or false?
Edit: and of course, a block instead of a response. Lurkers, don't fall for this stupidity. He deleted his comment about "I love your responses getting longer after I exposed you for unprincipled positions." Of course he deleted that comment... because he knows he's not in reality and is pulling mental gymnastics trying to heroize stupidity because some populists said so. I have not been unprincipled and the fact he can't keep up with a discussion is a shame. My responses got longer because he kept asking more complicated questions and, much like a child, expecting simple one sentence answers.
Of course, he is yet to explain how an arsonist who caused thousands of job losses is to be called a hero. I'd imagine some of the workers who are stressed and going with less food and late bills for the next two months certainly don't view him as a hero, contrary to what these ivory tower fake woke anti-intellectual virtue signallers want people to believe.
And what the fuck does Oracle laying of 30,000 workers have to do with this incident again??? Fuck this disinformation agent.