• kadotux@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    The part where you did actually muddy the waters is that you assumed that the picture depicts problems in a “showroom - homeless person” context, which is clearly not the case (as you contradictingly say yourself and even recognize when you said: “when “capitalism” is written on the photo”). The picture clearly criticizes capitalism as a economic system, but you wanted to make the showroom the focus point of the photo. That is muddying the waters. You dismiss the original critique. Or at least that’s how I read your comment. The difference between “I was talking about multiple points” and “muddying the waters” is not that big.

    On the other part, yeah, fair enough. I would compare it to a “utopian socialist society” rather than communistic, but sure whatever. I mean there are countries in the world where taking this picture is very easy, and some (socialist) countries where it’s take a bit of effort to find a situation like this to photograph in the first place (most nordic european countries, for example).

    The whole point of the image we are both commenting is a critique on capitalism. You are moving the point slightly towards “critique on showroom owners”.

    However let’s not get sidetracked here. In a utopian society there would be showrooms, yes. But the person would not be forced to sleep outside without a bed in such a society, be there showrooms or not. That is the point. Capitalism allows this, a socialist society doesn’t (just look at the countries with least homeless people and you’ll see)

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      None of which I contest. I discussed 2! things.

      You are fixating on the first.

      • kadotux@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I am fixating on the thing that relates to this picture. It seems to me (honestly, I don’t mean to come off as an ass) that your 2nd point of discussion is very much my “muddying the water” point. I don’t want to discuss that point, as that was totally irrelevant here. If I understood correctly, your 2 points were: (I’m paraphrasing, but) “I don’t understand, why showroom owners should let homeless people sleep inside their premises” and “every other economic system besides capitalism also has these qualities”

        Right? And I think I have provided arguments against both of these. What am I missing?