[Rushy]

"I'll just say the same thing that Rushy said back at him, that will surely show him that I don't know what I'm talking about again."

Yes, thank you.

Here,  I'll make this easier:

ITT:  Lots of people conflating redistribution of wealth with socialism when it actually has nothing to do with socialism, while capitalism has significantly higher wealth redistribution.

Here is you saying socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. Then you decide to agree with me and say it does. Which is it?

Economic systems are various forms of wealth redistribution. Saying socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution is like saying lakes have nothing to do with water.

[juner]

"I'll just say the same thing that Rushy said back at him, that will surely show him that I don't know what I'm talking about again."

Can you stop being intentionally obtuse for 5 seconds? In normal human conversation if something is unclear, you ask for clarification. I realize you aren't actually interested in discussion and just want to find something and say "haha you're wrong."

Here,  I'll make this easier:
Here is you saying socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. Then you decide to agree with me and say it does. Which is it?

And this is how I know you either don't actually read the posts in the thread or you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose. I should have been more clear in that post, but is obvious that I meant exclusive to socialism, especially since I qualified it at the end comparing higher wealth redistribution in capitalism. The only reason I said it was because most of the people in this thread are under the impression that socialism is about taking all your stuff and giving it to others, which is completely incorrect. There is literally a comparison in there that you decided to ignore like you just stopped reading the thread once you saw what you wanted to reply to. Had you actually kept reading the thread, you would have seen Rama ask for clarification like a reasonable person would do. To which I replied:

Functionally, yes, but not by the "numbers," so yes I am drawing a distinction. You aren't redistributing wealth since it doesn't (see: shouldn't) be controlled by one person (or a group of wealthy people). Obviously a socialist overthrow of capitalism would naturally result in a massive redistribution of wealth initially. It becomes a much more in-depth discussion as we will move into private property vs. personal property which I don't think is appropriate for Thonk's teen angst thread. In modern society, redistribution of wealth is significantly larger in capitalist economies which is really the main point.

I literally tell you what my main point is which you completely ignore and now pretend like you couldn't possibly understand what was being discussed. Instead you say that:

Economic systems, at their core, are arguments on how wealth should be distributed, not whether or not it is.

Literally no one is saying wealth isn't distributed. I should have just applied your level of pedantry and focused on you saying the word distributed instead of redistributed, then pretend like since they are different words I couldn't possibly understand what you mean so I just point out you are wrong and ignore context and not bother asking for clarification. Something like:

Economic systems are various forms of wealth redistribution. Saying socialism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution is like saying lakes have nothing to do with water.

Which is it? Can you not contradict yourself? Is it distribution or redistribution? They are different words, you know? You literally just said before that economic systems are about distribution of wealth. Now you are saying redistribution, maybe you should try being consistent.


Anyway, context matters. Try reading the thread next time.

[Rushy]

Can you stop being intentionally obtuse for 5 seconds? In normal human conversation if something is unclear, you ask for clarification. I realize you aren't actually interested in discussion and just want to find something and say "haha you're wrong."

I'm not being intentionally obtuse, but thanks for reaffirming that you can't read.

And this is how I know you either don't actually read the posts in the thread or you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose. I should have been more clear in that post, but is obvious that I meant exclusive to socialism, especially since I qualified it at the end comparing higher wealth redistribution in capitalism. The only reason I said it was because most of the people in this thread are under the impression that socialism is about taking all your stuff and giving it to others, which is completely incorrect. There is literally a comparison in there that you decided to ignore like you just stopped reading the thread once you saw what you wanted to reply to. Had you actually kept reading the thread, you would have seen Rama ask for clarification like a reasonable person would do. To which I replied:

Functionally, yes, but not by the "numbers," so yes I am drawing a distinction. You aren't redistributing wealth since it doesn't (see: shouldn't) be controlled by one person (or a group of wealthy people). Obviously a socialist overthrow of capitalism would naturally result in a massive redistribution of wealth initially. It becomes a much more in-depth discussion as we will move into private property vs. personal property which I don't think is appropriate for Thonk's teen angst thread. In modern society, redistribution of wealth is significantly larger in capitalist economies which is really the main point.

Saying "you aren't redistributing wealth by redistributing wealth" is functionally nonsensical, but I'm sure you already knew that. Read your posts before posting them in the future.

I literally tell you what my main point is which you completely ignore and now pretend like you couldn't possibly understand what was being discussed. Instead you say that:

Economic systems, at their core, are arguments on how wealth should be distributed, not whether or not it is.

Literally no one is saying wealth isn't distributed. I should have just applied your level of pedantry and focused on you saying the word distributed instead of redistributed, then pretend like since they are different words I couldn't possibly understand what you mean so I just point out you are wrong and ignore context and not bother asking for clarification. Something like:

Anyway, context matters. Try reading the thread next time.

Even in context, your sentence makes no sense. Saying socialism isn't redistributing wealth is nonsense. It's an economic system, they're all literally designed to redistribute wealth based on certain priorities. In capitalism, wealth is redistributed to those operating the market. In socialism, it's redistributed based on who you erroneously believe to be operating the market.

[juner]

Even in context, your sentence makes no sense. Saying socialism isn't redistributing wealth is nonsense.

Good thing that is not what I said, then. I already clarified for you even after you ignored the context of other posts and what I explicitly said to Rama. Continuing to pretend otherwise just confirms that you are indeed being intentionally dishonest. Good luck with that.

It's an economic system, they're all literally designed to redistribute wealth based on certain priorities.

You are free to keep thinking anyone is disagreeing with you. Although, you said it is about distributing wealth, not redistributing. Those are different words with different definitions. The only thing I can do is take what you literally said and assume it was the only possible thing you could have meant. You can clarify what you actually meant, but I will ignore that and continue to work on my initial flawed assumption and ignore any further context. That method seems to be working for you so far. You may want to look up what economics actually is before posting again so you don't give an incomplete definition rendering your position entirely incorrect.

>>Insert flawed, unrelated analogy here

[Dr David Thork]

And so we are a week later and Jeremy Corbyn is hating life. Each day he goes to Parliament with a face like a smacked arse and is remorselessly taunted. A living meme.

Corbyn expelled and forced out so many people, reshaping the Labour party, filling it with people just like him. The feral left. Those that when things turn bad will eat their own. And my, how they have been. I am reminded of the story of Prometheus, the Titan who was punished by Zeus for stealing fire and giving it to mankind. He was tied to a rock and each day an eagle would come and peck away his liver, and each night it would grow back and be pecked out all over again. And so each day Corbyn's self-esteem is pecked away by the Corbynistas and it recovers only to be pecked at again the next day. A man who set out to create Utopia but instead has shaped the Labour party into his own private hell.

And right now, that is all the Labour party is. Jeremy Corbyn's private hell. It serves no other function than to torment him.

Oh, and happy #OwenJonesIsAWankerDay

[Pete Svarrior]

I am reminded of the story of Prometheus, the Titan who was punished by Zeus for stealing fire and giving it to mankind. [...]

This is amazing BoJo roleplay. I almost started reading this in his voice