• maniclucky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m cutting myself off here regardless of response for my own health, though I’ll respond in good faith. Albeit with a bad attitude at this point.

    The appeal to nature was implied. Don’t bring it up if you don’t want it to be part of things. Your argument would be better suited by saying “labor and terminology are socially constructed”. Bears no implicit baggage. Also, see how I inserted something constructive? Arguments are not always to be won, but are often better for enhancing understanding, even if you feel like you’re holding your interlocutor’s hand.

    You ask me a lot of questions without answering any yourself, which feels very bad faith. Especially when you’re asking big societal level questions from a random person on the internet who has zero power to do any meaningful change beyond being nice to the people around me. I’m more than happy to bash rich white people (which most of your leading questions lead to) and you don’t have to be a contrarian dick about it. Honey and vinegar my dude.

    I’m not answering your bad faith spree of condescension. In the future, make your point and don’t ask others to make it for you and avoid assuming that everyone else is dumb (which is how you come off). Just because a person doesn’t list out all their reasoning, doesn’t mean they haven’t thought about it. You come of as militant and aggressive to people that are on your side, which is always bad.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Listen. The topic is terminology and constructs imposing on workers a division, of some being “unskilled”.

      You had suggested that such norms have a “logistical” (e.g. natural) utility, as for example of career counselors seeking to process cases more efficiently. Your repeated insistence that I have invoked an appeal to nature, even in spite of my denial, is dishonest.

      I sought to challenge your representation of the natural utility for the construct of the “unskilled worker”, and your representation of its occurrence in society. Constructs are not equally helpful to everyone. Society has structure.

      Capitalists organize the division of labor, the recruitment of workers, and perpetuate the wage system.

      The term “unskilled worker”, obviously, is a construct reproduced by capitalists, toward the effect of marginalizing a cohort of the working class, and keeping the class divided and therefore disempowered, against becoming conscious of being oppressed beneath the wage system.

      There is no argument to be won, or grand solution to be proposed. There is no value merely in subjecting the privileged to “bashing”.

      Value derives from being critical over how society is organized, and the processes by which it is reproduced, and from seeking the opportunities for meaningful change.

      Answers and solutions cannot simply be passed to you, as though on a silver platter. You need to think and to learn, to ask questions yourself, and to try to answer them, with an attitude that is critical, not avoidant or assured.

      What is abundantly clear is that if you are protected the construct of the “unskilled workers”, then you are protecting capitalists, and harming the working class.