https://twitter.com/ENBrown
https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/822535666441613317
https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/822583329849544704
The dishonesty in the responses is almost too ridiculous to be believed. One tweet in reply was that somehow one is forced to patronize capitalist businesses as a result of living under free market conditions — as if freedom compels interaction with businesses. How many people expect any other even remotely sane person to be convinced by such nonsense?
"surely you understand that fighting against capitalism doesn't change the fact that we currently must exist under capitalism" https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/822535666441613317
It is hard to believe, but one person seemed to not understand the original intention of Elizabeth's tweet — as if the hypocrisy of the supposed 'protesters' was not obvious, and the business they had patronized was not a product of what they were protesting. What is going on here? Do some people actually believe that businesses like 7-Eleven are some kind of government run, socialist enterprise — i.e. that they are not a product of a free market and capitalism? —
https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/822582930723766273
To those who honestly do not understand, perhaps part of Elizabeth Nolan Brown's original intent was to point out the very common hypocrisy among people of denouncing that which they happily use and receive a benefit from.
Notice the completely nonsensical, and even aggressively stupid reply from Michael Curry. Curry did not address the original comment that someone would patronize a nationwide business that only exists because of capitalism and free markets, while simultaneously protesting capitalism and free markets — but instead Curry implies that it is absurd to think that people should not take benefit from that which they think is harmful, as if there is no other way for them to satisfy a particular need —
Curry: "If capitalism is so bad, why do you eat food? Checkmate!"Notice the explicit idiocy here, relative to Elizabeth Nolan Brown's original tweet — you either buy some food at a nationwide, capitalist business, or you starve.
The point is not what was being purchased, but that the mechanics of the production and distribution of the product (i.e. private property and free markets) was being denounced, and yet still patronized.
This is exactly like protesting a slaughterhouse, while simultaneously eating a steak.
This is exactly like protesting slavery, while simultaneously buying a slave at auction.
This is exactly like protesting a violation of individual rights, while simultaneously destroying the private property of individuals.
That the good was food was incidental — the same point would have applied if the protesters had been buying any number of other things — lug nuts, fertilizer, tennis balls, etc.
In an attempt to pretend that he has a point, Curry (like many others) drops the context of Elizabeth Nolan Brown's original comment — in this case, a purchase from an institution that is a product of what what was being protested.
If you fill in the details that Curry conveniently leaves out, in his attempt to sound reasonable, you see that he has no point —
If capitalism is so bad, why would you buy anything (including food) from nationwide, or even global institutions that are a product of capitalism?In short, if capitalism is so bad, why do you happily take its benefits, when you are not compelled to do so?
And notice the absurd irony of those who claim 'we must exist under this capitalist system', when a free society (i.e. one that has free markets and is actually capitalist) is the only society under which one could actually establish a 'commune' with like minded individuals (or whatever one calls their supposed non-capitalist paradise). It cannot be done under communist dictatorships like North Korea or Cuba, for obvious reasons — completely socialist governments (i.e. governments that own the means of production), will not allow anyone to produce anything without their control.
Perhaps that is what is revealed by all of this willful blindness in the responses to Elizabeth Nolan Brown's original tweet — that many wish to force everyone else to operate under their dictates.
Many seem to have some bizarre delusion that they will be the ones controlling the initiation of force in their twisted socialist dream, and that somehow, magically, they will be able to control the power they are dreaming of, but only at the expense of everyone else.
As Elizabeth Nolan Brown replied in a tweet to a dishonest responder: "you're willfully misreading what I say. Why?"
When you prefer a lie, that is what you do.
No comments:
Post a Comment