They’re saying that just because you claim something ought to be a certain way it has no bearing in how it is, or ever was.
This is a common thing done by libs to support capitalism. They talk about how it “ought” to work, as if there is any way for capitalism to exist that is not inherently anti-social. Its a defense used by the cynical and well meaning alike, a deflection to ignore the reality of how these hierarchical relationships were always designed to be. Its similar to how libs say its not capitalism its “crony capitalism”
What you’re saying ought to be not only isn’t, but never was. And talking about how it “ought to be” isn’t a defense of reality
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I wasn’t trying to defend anything, but I suppose I see how including the “now” in my original comment might be construed in a “things used to be better” way. Wasn’t my intention, I have no idea how it used to be anyway.
Not going to edit the original though, for preservation of the context for this conversation.
Of course. Yeah i didn’t think you meant it as a hard defense of anything. Your comment seemed totally well intentioned. And if capitalism was capable of good and not an inherently anti-social system then it ought to be like you’re describing.
I think a lot of well intentioned people can get caught in that place of talking about how it ought to be instead of realizing why its not.
Can’t derive an is from an ought, idiot
Wat?
They’re saying that just because you claim something ought to be a certain way it has no bearing in how it is, or ever was.
This is a common thing done by libs to support capitalism. They talk about how it “ought” to work, as if there is any way for capitalism to exist that is not inherently anti-social. Its a defense used by the cynical and well meaning alike, a deflection to ignore the reality of how these hierarchical relationships were always designed to be. Its similar to how libs say its not capitalism its “crony capitalism”
What you’re saying ought to be not only isn’t, but never was. And talking about how it “ought to be” isn’t a defense of reality
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I wasn’t trying to defend anything, but I suppose I see how including the “now” in my original comment might be construed in a “things used to be better” way. Wasn’t my intention, I have no idea how it used to be anyway.
Not going to edit the original though, for preservation of the context for this conversation.
Of course. Yeah i didn’t think you meant it as a hard defense of anything. Your comment seemed totally well intentioned. And if capitalism was capable of good and not an inherently anti-social system then it ought to be like you’re describing.
I think a lot of well intentioned people can get caught in that place of talking about how it ought to be instead of realizing why its not.