You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Discussion of the definitions of words is usually a tangent, or irrelevant to the topic at hand. This thread is for such discussions.

IB, there is a crucial difference between criminalization and demonization. Let's use cigarettes as an example.

Let's say that I think cigarettes should be banned in public spaces. There are two ways I could go about achieving this:

1. I could present a good argument for banning cigarettes in public spaces, including the detrimental health effects, and successfully defend against opposing arguments.

2. I could paint cigarette-users as evil people who hate life, and want to see everything cough and die.

Both could be effective, both could lead to banning cigarettes in public spaces, but only one is demonization.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Discussion of the definitions of words is usually a tangent, or irrelevant to the topic at hand. This thread is for such discussions.

IB, there is a crucial difference between criminalization and demonization. Let's use cigarettes as an example.

Let's say that I think cigarettes should be banned in public spaces. There are two ways I could go about achieving this:

1. I could present a good argument for banning cigarettes in public spaces, including the detrimental health effects, and successfully defend against opposing arguments.

2. I could paint cigarette-users as evil people who hate life, and want to see everything cough and die.

Both could be effective, both could lead to banning cigarettes in public spaces, but only one is demonization.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, for ****'s sake. It was an example. Are you seriously claiming that all laws demonize those whose activities they control?

Saying that something harms society =/= saying that those who do it are evil. Addiction is a thing.

jwoodward48 wrote:Edit: And it's funny how the meaning of a word becomes irrelevant once I confront you on it.

jwoodward48 wrote: Wait, what? You started the use of the word, I'm stating that you are misusing it.

jwoodward48 wrote: Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.

jwoodward48 wrote:
You're just spinning whatever I say the other way.

I want to prevent corruption and criminalize exploitation. Anything can be spun two ways - we can do this forever.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.

So where were we?


.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
You're just spinning whatever I say the other way.

I want to prevent corruption and criminalize exploitation. Anything can be spun two ways - we can do this forever.

Corruption is the inevitable result of cronyism, which is often the result of attempting a Utopia.

Exploitation is not a criminal act. I exploit my food when I eat it. I exploit my grocery store when I shop there.

I don't think you know what 'exploit' means either.

1. make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
"500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology"
synonyms: utilize, harness, use, make use of, turn/put to good use, make the most of, capitalize on, benefit from; informalcash in on
"we should exploit this new technology"

2. use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way.
"the company was exploiting a legal loophole"
3. benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them.
"making money does not always mean exploiting others"
synonyms: take advantage of, abuse, impose on, treat unfairly, misuse, ill-treat; More

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.

Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.

Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!

It's the topic of this thread. Scroll up!

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
You're just spinning whatever I say the other way.

I want to prevent corruption and criminalize exploitation. Anything can be spun two ways - we can do this forever.

Corruption is the inevitable result of cronyism, which is often the result of attempting a Utopia.

Cronyism can result in corruption. That is not the only way to for corruption to arise.

Exploitation is not a criminal act. I exploit my food when I eat it. I exploit my grocery store when I shop there.

I don't think you know what 'exploit' means either.

1. make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
"500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology"
synonyms: utilize, harness, use, make use of, turn/put to good use, make the most of, capitalize on, benefit from; informalcash in on
"we should exploit this new technology"

2. use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way.
"the company was exploiting a legal loophole"
3. benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them.
"making money does not always mean exploiting others"
synonyms: take advantage of, abuse, impose on, treat unfairly, misuse, ill-treat; More

See? Multiple meanings. I am using the second definition.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.

Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!

It's the topic of this thread. Scroll up!

So? That doesn't change my statement.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.

Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!

It's the topic of this thread. Scroll up!

So? That doesn't change my statement.

It changes its applicability. It is not a valid excuse for not scrolling up. It is not a valid excuse for not knowing what was being discussed in a thread dedicated to a single word.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.

Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!

It's the topic of this thread. Scroll up!

So? That doesn't change my statement.

It changes its applicability. It is not a valid excuse for not scrolling up. It is not a valid excuse for not knowing what was being discussed in a thread dedicated to a single word.

No, it doesn't. My statement and its applicability still stands.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.

Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!

It's the topic of this thread. Scroll up!

So? That doesn't change my statement.

It changes its applicability. It is not a valid excuse for not scrolling up. It is not a valid excuse for not knowing what was being discussed in a thread dedicated to a single word.

No, it doesn't. My statement and its applicability still stands.

Your statement is correct, but cannot be used to explain why you do not know what this thread is about - if the topic of discussion is readily available with little to no effort, you are expected to know what the topic is before joining the discussion.

If I am joining a discussion about dinosaurs, starting by talking about elephants is nonsensical. I cannot justify that with "well you talk about many animals," as I could clearly hear them saying "diplodocus" and "apatosaurus" and "pterosaur" (yes, I know that's not a dinosaur, but it's related). In real-life discussions, that might be okay, if most everyone agrees that elephants are more interesting to talk about at the moment. But in a forum, and within a thread which was started for a single topic, it's not okay.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm also using the 3rd sense, they're rather similar. The 3rd is sort of a special case of the 2nd.

If someone uses a person in an unfair way, say, keeping them in poverty so that they can take their work and pay them not enough, then that is exploitation. They can't easily leave, they can't rely on becoming manager - how do you get out? Many people can't.

And this is not okay.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm also using the 3rd sense, they're rather similar. The 3rd is sort of a special case of the 2nd.

If someone uses a person in an unfair way, say, keeping them in poverty so that they can take their work and pay them not enough, then that is exploitation. They can't easily leave, they can't rely on becoming manager - how do you get out? Many people can't.

And this is not okay.

As you notice, there are several usages, one being a neutral semantic about simply leveraging a resource (sans any connotation) and the connotation, hate-laden semantic you prefer.

Don't be surprised if you get picked apart every time you use "exploit" to dishonestly conceal your hate agenda.


.

jwoodward48 wrote: What other word should I use then? I have a concept that I am speaking out against, and "exploit" is the best word I know for it.

jwoodward48 wrote:It now includes not just benefiting from an owner-worker relationship, but it is unfair

jwoodward48 wrote: - for instance, unpaid overtime (there are ways to do this),

jwoodward48 wrote: union-busting (ditto),

jwoodward48 wrote:sweatshop labour

jwoodward48 wrote:
It stands - it is true - but it is not useful. You are trying to use it to justify talking about other things in a thread specifically for on topic. Not the worst of offenses, so this is just quibbling, both of us.

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm also using the 3rd sense, they're rather similar. The 3rd is sort of a special case of the 2nd.

If someone uses a person in an unfair way, say, keeping them in poverty so that they can take their work and pay them not enough, then that is exploitation. They can't easily leave, they can't rely on becoming manager - how do you get out? Many people can't.

And this is not okay.

As you notice, there are several usages, one being a neutral semantic about simply leveraging a resource (sans any connotation) and the connotation, hate-laden semantic you prefer.

Don't be surprised if you get picked apart every time you use "exploit" to dishonestly conceal your hate agenda.


.

What other word should I use then? I have a concept that I am speaking out against, and "exploit" is the best word I know for it.

You appear to have some difficulty with the concept of "multiple meanings." Let's be clear - the second is related to, but distinct from, the first. It now includes not just benefiting from an owner-worker relationship, but it is unfair - for instance, unpaid overtime (there are ways to do this), union-busting (ditto), setting up nerve-wracking political backstabbing situations (stacks), sweatshop labour (not in the US, but US companies not only profit, but use this in other countries), paying workers so little that they are practically forced to use food stamps (you know which company I'm talking about), 16- to 20-hour days, using child workers (same disclaimer as "sweatshop labour"), and torture (ditto).

Now, you might say "not all companies." That's true - many companies, maybe even most, don't exploit their workers. But on the other hand, most people in the South before the Civil War weren't slaveowners - does that make slavery ethical? (I am not comparing exploitation to slavery. I am noting another situation in which an argument could apply, and which would produce an unacceptable result.)

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: What other word should I use then? I have a concept that I am speaking out against, and "exploit" is the best word I know for it.

"Mutual agreement." Speak out against "mutual agreements." In most cases you can substitute the word "individual freedom." You can speak out against that as well.

You do enjoy abusing the concept of "multiple meanings." Repeat after me: "The forcings trap the warmth in the climate."

jwoodward48 wrote:It now includes not just benefiting from an owner-worker relationship, but it is unfair

You consider mutual agreements to be "unfair" because it was decided freely by individuals and not mandated by an omnipotent government.

You consider the adding of value to society as "unfair" because the amount of happiness is increasing.

You consider the rewards of making the world a better place, i.e. nice things, to be "unfair" because you hate humanity and want everyone to be flat broke and miserable.

In short, I understand your position. I just don't agree that those things are unfair; I want more of them.

jwoodward48 wrote: - for instance, unpaid overtime (there are ways to do this),

This is already illegal. Are you going to campaign against theft and murder as well?

jwoodward48 wrote: union-busting (ditto),

Unions should be completely voluntary without the requirement for dues. No organization should have approval authority for someone to work.

jwoodward48 wrote:sweatshop labour

Be specific. Connotation and imagery are dismissed. Are you against people sewing as a job? What's your complaint?

jwoodward48 wrote: Strawman or demonization.

jwoodward48 wrote: I am speaking out against exploitative mutual agreements.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, because it was not decided freely by the exploited worker.

jwoodward48 wrote: Do you think that all sweatshop workers chose freely to be in a sweatshop for dozens of hours on end?

jwoodward48 wrote: No, I don't. Exploitation doesn't add any value to society.

jwoodward48 wrote: - and unpaid overtime has many loopholes, for instance promoting to a "managerial" position that seems strangely identical to before.

jwoodward48 wrote: Sure. A sweatshop is defined by the US Department of Labour as a factory that violates more than two labour laws.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: Strawman or demonization.

"Strawman" is your code word for "I can't go there, it puts my faith in jeopardy."

jwoodward48 wrote: I am speaking out against exploitative mutual agreements.

Right. You're weaseling. You want to hijack the word "exploitive" to mean "perfectly legitimate but runs against my desire to ruin the economy and to make people miserable."

jwoodward48 wrote: No, because it was not decided freely by the exploited worker.

The worker says otherwise, and you don't get to speak for the worker.

jwoodward48 wrote: Do you think that all sweatshop workers chose freely to be in a sweatshop for dozens of hours on end?

Absolutely. They show up for work every day. Do you think they aren't allowed to go home?

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: No, I don't. Exploitation doesn't add any value to society.

It sure does. Every time a successful business expands and hires workers, society benefits in countless ways. If only you understood economics you would know this.

Wait, you want to pout that you are only talking about the "capitalist" employers who are hiring workers. I get it.

jwoodward48 wrote: - and unpaid overtime has many loopholes, for instance promoting to a "managerial" position that seems strangely identical to before.

Do you know what a loophole is? I'm guessing that you don't. This is probably going to be another embarrassing English comprehension issue.

jwoodward48 wrote: Sure. A sweatshop is defined by the US Department of Labour as a factory that violates more than two labour laws.

Great! You are already using the definition by which "sweatshop" is already defined as a law-breaking organization. What's left to discuss?

You want to stop law-breakers. Great. What do you think about the idea of the FBI just letting someone walk who essentially admitted to serious crimes and blatantly obstructed justice?


.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
It stands - it is true - but it is not useful. You are trying to use it to justify talking about other things in a thread specifically for on topic. Not the worst of offenses, so this is just quibbling, both of us.

Hey, dumbass...subthreads of all topics appear in any thread. Haven't you noticed that?

You should, you've done it often enough, including this very subthread.

You are not a thread cop. You have NO say in the matter. F**k you.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm also using the 3rd sense, they're rather similar. The 3rd is sort of a special case of the 2nd.

If someone uses a person in an unfair way, say, keeping them in poverty so that they can take their work and pay them not enough, then that is exploitation. They can't easily leave, they can't rely on becoming manager - how do you get out? Many people can't.

And this is not okay.

As you notice, there are several usages, one being a neutral semantic about simply leveraging a resource (sans any connotation) and the connotation, hate-laden semantic you prefer.

Don't be surprised if you get picked apart every time you use "exploit" to dishonestly conceal your hate agenda.

.

What other word should I use then? I have a concept that I am speaking out against, and "exploit" is the best word I know for it.

You appear to have some difficulty with the concept of "multiple meanings." Let's be clear - the second is related to, but distinct from, the first. It now includes not just benefiting from an owner-worker relationship, but it is unfair - for instance, unpaid overtime (there are ways to do this), union-busting (ditto), setting up nerve-wracking political backstabbing situations (stacks), sweatshop labour (not in the US, but US companies not only profit, but use this in other countries), paying workers so little that they are practically forced to use food stamps (you know which company I'm talking about), 16- to 20-hour days, using child workers (same disclaimer as "sweatshop labour"), and torture (ditto).

Now, you might say "not all companies." That's true - many companies, maybe even most, don't exploit their workers. But on the other hand, most people in the South before the Civil War weren't slaveowners - does that make slavery ethical? (I am not comparing exploitation to slavery. I am noting another situation in which an argument could apply, and which would produce an unacceptable result.)

jwoodward48 wrote: Have you ever talked to a worker?

jwoodward48 wrote: Do you think that they would stay in sweatshops if they had an actual way of providing for themselves elsewhere?

jwoodward48 wrote: That's no choice. They have no other option, save "scavenge in the streets" or "die".

jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay, fine. It adds value to society by hurting part of society and helping other parts.

jwoodward48 wrote: The fact that American companies can do this in other countries.

jwoodward48 wrote: Depends on context. Which serious crime, which person, and how did they obstruct justice?