Savant

If you are logged out offensive threads don't show up

No, then more people could be banned.

Incels (in his mind) want to rape women but don't because of the law.

Again did he explicitly say this? And if he said it about incels not all men then it's not enough to be bannable.

Then it would be even more subjective. Anything someone might consider offensive could be considered harassment.

Did he explicitly say men are assumed to want to rape women, or is that your interpretation of his words?

The majority of mods are left of center, so it's going to be biased against conservatives.

I'm aware that bias may be an issue, but "reasonable person" was the most concrete compromise we could come to.

RemyBrown wrote:

The CoC has 2 prohibited sections; merge them.

But what I found was:

In gray areas, a post would be considered a personal attack if a reasonable person would consider the post primarily motivated by an attempt to offend or attack the target user, rather than an earnest belief that may happen to also be offensive.

Define, "reasonable person" or eliminate this sentence from the CoC.

It's hard to strictly define but it was as close to an agreement the mods could come to without seeing a specific case. Basically we would decide on a case by case basis by majority vote using our own interpretations of "reasonable person."

The offensive stuff (unless you add more bc it's not a comprehensive list) is

What you listed is the bannable stuff (aside from defending stuff in the abstract), not the offensive stuff.

I don't really see how someone with bunch of money would live a worse life by donating some of it

This isn't really anti-employment then, it's pro-charity. Implies Bezos should squeeze as much out of his employees as he can and then redistribute to those who need it more. And that if a business owner isn't wealthy, it's fine for them to hire people and not offer more if it would significantly affect their own quality of life.

So it's not me giving all to someone else, but some balance where we both live quality lives worth living.

But the liver and volunteering still helps them more than it costs you, would still be a net gain.

Again, "good" depends on comparison. Let's say your only options were getting punched in face or losing an arm. In this scenario, getting punched in face is "good".

If this is based on practical options, then getting exploited is good because generally speaking, those with jobs are better than those without. People aren't lining up to hand out free money, so working is better than starving.

If it's based on the maximum you could give, then even donating a kidney isn't good because you also could have spent all day volunteering and given part of your liver too but you just gave your kidney.

Good doesn't mean the best possible option just like positive doesn't mean the biggest possible number. Otherwise why even have the word great? Or the word best?

SatanLucy wrote:

Again, what is good or bad depends on comparison. Saying exploitation is better than nothing is not saying exploitation is good, when better systems can be made which reduce exploitation and improve life quality more.

This is not a good way to evaluate things. I could say "punching someone in the face is good because it could be worse."

RemyBrown wrote:

-> For me to mark him he'd have to post a slur or say something racist or something on that level. 

He's said all the time that women are justified in choosing the bear over the strange man (so that's sexism).

If he said something like "the bear is better because men stink and are inferior to women" that would be explicit sexism. Otherwise, the sexism is at most inferred and that's not sufficient.

Those are actions that lead to bans. Your content does not need to be prohibited to be offensive.

Again, I'm fine with banning child labor and even using the government to coerce companies for the greater good. There are cases where exploitation is bad. If we're both in favor of mixed economies, then I'm not sure we have a material disagreement, I'm just saying exploitation is not inherently bad.

But would you have similar problems with a society that gave the same amount to charity and just exploited less? Assuming the exploitation was consensual and improved people's circumstances on top of the charity?

If your goal is helping others, then surely money you make can be used to help the people you exploited first, so it stops being exploitation.

Why? You've already helped them and there's diminishing returns.

To put things in perspective, if average American donated 20% of their income to charity, they would raise 12 trillions each year, and that's pretty much enough to solve any damn social issue in whole USA.

If your point is just charity is good then fine I agree. Maybe people are even obligated to give some amount. But above that I think exploitation is justified cause it is helping, just a limited amount. I don't think everyone is obligated to sell every organ they can and work long hours to maximally help.

The problem in "maximizing profit to help others" lies in the fact that each extra money can be further used to make new investments and maximize profit. So maximizing profit actually never ends in cycle and money never reaches people.

Or you reinvest some percent and donate the rest. Depends on the circumstances but that could be more effective.

I don't believe in "harm one to help another" approach.

Except exploitation isn't harm since it's better than nothing. In fact, not exploiting would be helping less than you could be since you wouldn't have the money to help others.

You don't have to give all your money, just extra

You said until poverty is eliminated.

And the nation will not go broke.

I was asking if individuals, without state backing, were obligated to give all their excess money to charity. I guess you think they are, so I guess from a hard utilitarianism view, exploitation is suboptimal. But I still think the optimal utilitarian path might involve exploiting some people in order to use the profit to help others.

For me to mark him he'd have to post a slur or say something racist or something on that level. If you block him and refuse to engage with him, I can take action. Otherwise I can't.

just give all extra until there are no more poor people

Pretty much anyone who tries that will go broke long before poverty is eliminated.

I don't think he's crossed the lines for what was voted offensive.

So everyone is obligated to give all their excess income to charity?

In any case, society where people help each other without seeking personal benefits each time is way better.

No one in this thread is denying that, the argument is that exploitation is better than inaction.

Maybe some exploitation is unavoidable, but government pretty much had to intervene to reduce exploitation for countless times in past few hundred years, because when left to itself, capitalism maximizes exploitation

Government regulation is not the same as Marxism. Most people defending what Marx calls capitalism are defending mixed economies, which are not the same as unregulated markets. I've already stated there are special cases where exploitation is coercive.

Wars, housing, healthcare, products designed to break down to increase sales rate, lobbying

I think healthcare and planned obsolescence were the two examples I mentioned already as two of the only exceptions. So yeah, there's not much beyond that. Zoning laws mainly survive because of votes from homeowners who want to keep their property values high but don't want to sell their houses. And with all of these, it's reducing the quality or availability of the product compared to free competition, but without the exploiters the product wouldn't be getting to people in the first place. If you have an issue with lobbying to reduce competition, that's just them reducing the availability of the very exploitation you're claiming to dislike.

Wars you can maybe argue, but in first-world countries I don't think lobbying is the primary political incentive, because politicians live and die by votes and if they start an unpopular war they throw a lot of those away. Politicians do it to look strong or appeal to voters or distract from domestic issues.

Additionally, most of these examples involve govt corruption, and, plenty of countries ban lobbying while still having markets. If we're at the point where we can get things accomplished via laws, why not stop at restricting lobbying rather than banning contracts altogether? At this point I think your issue is more with the political structure than with the actual exchanges.

pollution, obesity, depression, addiction-based design of products to increase sales rate

Kind of a stretch to say the companies are causing these problems to sell the solution. Some products cause problems and people buy them anyway, which is their choice, but that's not the same thing. Causing a broad societal problem to gain a market is pretty inefficient and runs into a tragedy of the commons since the benefits are shared by other companies in the industry. Pollution is an issue, but at that point the charge isn't even against exploitation anymore, it's just a totally different type of problem that wasn't really the point of the original post.

Some people are richer now, yes. The homeless arent.

Median incomes and quality of life have gone way up over the past century.

Offensiveness is based on what was voted offensive. People voted no marking if the insults are back and forth and don't get into slurs or racism.

I marked that comment as offensive. If SL makes a habit of these kinds of comments, he'll be marked as offensive.

"Most big companies are inventing new products rather than causing problems to create a need." -> I appreciate the opinion. I just disagree with it.

Its not the capitalists I am blaming, but exploiters, who as I said before also create new ways of exploitation.

Technology has improved and people are richer now than most earlier times in history. Companies are coming out with new products all the time. New computers, phones, accessories, every food product you can think of. How many examples can you think of where exploiters in first world countries are creating problems just to sell the solution? It happens, but it's the exception and not the rule.