this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
480 points (96.9% liked)

Socialism

5187 readers
1 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please consider referring to the income of billionaires not as earnings.

Earning is based on achievement or merit. Profits are appropriated, claimed, or stolen, but not earned.

[–] dependencyInjection@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the semantics of the word “earn” are the least of our worries here mate.

Rather than do that I’d rather go and cut his head off and parade it down 5th avenue.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There may not be such an event in the foreseeable future, or at any rate, not in the next few days or weeks.

However, the request is not based on a worry about semantics, but rather an observation that language influences how people think and feel.

Preferring language such as claim or steal over earn helps emphasize that workers have an interest in eliminating a class who lives by our labor.

Using language as you have done serves to vindicate the class disparity, to erase the class antagonism, and to protect the interests of the owning class.

[–] dependencyInjection@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can understand that and will try to use different wording.

In this instance I think claim is fine but I would take issue with steal, as I would expect stealing (theft) would most likely have to be backed up by law as stealing is a criminal offence and so for someone to have done that then they should be tried in a court.

Perhaps, the word “earn” could still be used but we could follow it with “through exploitation” as they generally make these profits by exploiting society and their workforce. You can earn things in non-favourable ways after all, no?

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The law protects private property.

If you defend the law, how would you overcome the wealth accumulation of billionaires through the legal construct of private property?

[–] dependencyInjection@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am not defending the law, more pointing out the use of certain words have certain meanings, particularly for media companies to print them would be suicide if they said Bill Gates steals $30B. Whilst we may see that accurate, the current law doesn’t and thus they would be sued and give him more money.

I believe nothing will ever change as the vast majority of people don’t care, are numb to it, or don’t have time to care.

I don’t defend the law and in fact I’ll break the law as much as I can get away with.

I’m apathetic to life really and honestly dying doesn’t seem so bad as this place is a hell hole. And I am lucky enough to work my dream job, have a decent employer (< 10 staff, boss (lead engineer, owner) and works harder than me), average quality of life etc and yet I just can’t go on. Everywhere you look it’s just horrific humans committing horrific acts.

Then you have someone arguing about the semantics of words. Perhaps I’m too cynical now but I don’t see anything changing unless we have a mass revolt and well judging by how laws are changing over protests or how people view protesters I can hardly see a French style revolution happening.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do the meanings of words vary or change based on rhetorical stance, cultural context, or historic period?

Are mainstream media and mainstream practices the precedent you understand as the one to guide your choices toward the objectives you identify as meaningful?