Hacker News Reader

Comment by smcl | Hacker News Reader

I don't get it, can you please explain

I think it's the thing from the "yet you participate in society! Curious!" comic, but—incredibly, in this the year of our lord 2022—played straight.

I do not know if I can explain it, but the point is the article is mocking an imaginary version of capitalism at the same time the publication is flashing me a Sale pop-up which is real capitalism. The America media pretends at the intellectual level it is leftist but at the bean-counter level it is more hard-core than a street drug dealer. That irony of this situation prompted my response. But I would ask, not to read too much in either comments they were both made in lighter mood and were neither preceded by and not likely to be succeeded by 'deep thought'.

You don’t know if you can explain your own joke?

The question is about precision of my explanation, unlike you I have not figured out life, so bit of self-doubt.

> The America media pretends at the intellectual level it is leftist but at the bean-counter level it is more hard-core than a street drug dealer.

That's a false dichotomy (and the street drug dealer comparison is hyperbole).

Advocating for leftist ideas like a floor on the standard of living and ensuring equal opportunity doesn't contradict pursuing a smart, aggressive, and legal business strategy, except in the mind of a libertarian absolutist.

You're complaining about hyperbole and false dichotomies in defense of what is, at best, a middle-school attempt at satirizing libertarianism.

> in defense of what is, at best, a middle-school attempt at satirizing libertarianism

You didn't seem to read the comments clearly.

I defended the right to charge for an article while also satirizing libertarianism (making no comment about the quality of the article), because believe it or not, even in countries with strong social safety nets people buy and sell things.

Is your clarification that you aren't defending the article per se, but rather the right to charge for access to said article?

Sure, but it doesn't really change my point, or my comment.

> because believe it or not, even in countries with strong social safety nets people buy and sell things.

Your whole condescension here is completely unwarranted. I am well aware that there are a variety of economic systems historically and now.

Look, is it juvenile to accuse lefty/progressive publications of hypocrisy for trying to make money? Sure. And if this was all about some thoughtful criticism of capitalism then the juvenile nature of such a remark would be out of place.

But the original article was likewise completely juvenile and to be frank doesn't even really make sense. It paints a contradictory picture of Libertarianism without concerning itself with whether those contradictions exist in reality or merely in author's own understanding.

I could have responding to the OP with the same sort or "well actually..." type of response as you just did, but it would be like casting pearls before swine. The OP is not a serious intellectual work, and isn't even really that great artistically. It's just an Internet shitpost with fancy letterhead.

The implication is that the New Yorker is just as greedy as the capitalists and corporations it professes to hate.

Does the New Yorker profess to hate capitalists and corporations? Isn’t it owned by those?

I love capitalists I hate libertarians

Reply on news.ycombinator.com