I blame the gay panic of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Webadict’s statement:

you have to admit that the bottom line is the chief concern here, and not the safety of the workers of consumers.

Clinicallydepressedpoochie’s response:

We are far beyond seamstresses burning up in a building with no escape route. The cost of an incident has tangible costs. How will production continue if your sugar mills keep blowing up? Who will make your product if your workers keep breaking their backs? How will tribal knowledge of your process be preserved if your workers keep dying from inhaling toxic fumes? How will you meet deadlines if you’re equipment keeps igniting?

As an aside: what profit do workers make when they’re employees? They didn’t invest in the business. They are selling their time/energy (or labour) to the company at a certain rate. You’d have to compare that rate to the value of any other potential salary, as well as minus health and stress costs, plus take into account the value of non-economic activity that could also use those resources.

I agree, but add the proviso that since under capitalism capital is power, those with the most capital will slowly find ways to use their capital to deregulate their income streams again.

Supporting friendly politicians, editorial control of the media, or even just the good old Starbucks/Wallmart practice of squashing independent competitors by leveraging economies of scale to outcompete on price - which at the end of the day, the poor customer has to pay attention to. These are all examples of how capital will find ways to get ahead.

Even if companies can’t donate, the CEO or every member of the board still can.

That’s the thing, merit can be defined however we want be any value system.

One could define it as any of the things you said. I can define it as bringing happiness or health as easily as boosting profit, and if I wanted to facetiously make a point I could define it as strength or even “being closely related to previous leaders”.

What is deemed as merit is itself a statement of what has highest value under that system.

Under Capitalism the merit that’s rewarded, in my eyes, is the ability to make money.

I personally, would rather a system that places ability to support peace and raise quality of life as the merit that is rewarded.

And it’s quite valid for someone to level that same comment at you.

Only in its adverts.

What truly drives capitalism is the need to get more capital to reinvest to get more capital.

The system doesn’t, can’t, intrinsically care about how it is done.

It’s also telling that all your “merits” are of the commodity, not humans.

Why do you think Capitalism has meritocracy as a core component?

Capitalism is a system where capital needs to be converted into more capital via economic action (reinvestment) rather than just sat upon.

Capital will always find ways to grow, if there are laws - they will be lobbied against. Or those with main market share will work together to stabilise the market and squash competition.

Have seen a lot of stolen bikes in my town, and my brother’s front wheel was nicked last week, and he sent me a forks down photo.

I also noted that as a detail for the police report part. But missed out on checking for cctv or the like. Which is odd as I usually clock them, amongst other things in physical spaces in day to day life.

1. White/colourless ball. And honestly, more of a circle viewed from a perfect side on angle.
2. I didn’t visualise a person only the effect of their push on the ball. And like another poster corrected the slide to a roll.
3. See above.
4. Ball was of uncertain size. It was viewed side on, and no other objects to give a sense of scale. Maybe tennis ball sized, but I think that’s retroactive.
5. Table was rectangular and wooden. But no legs. Unsure of the thickness.

Included the timely-ness of the details in my answers above.

Interesting point and I’m glad you made it, with a thought (?) experiment to check.

I think I am somewhat aphantastic, but not officially diagnosed.

嗯，嗯。还谢谢你的话。老师说简单的说人才能懂我的意思。说英语的时候我太爱用复杂的句子。

民族主义不是第一种的原因。但是我还是觉得攻击者的背景会有相同的。 我认为他们跟美国的乱开枪者类似。18-50岁男的，生活不愉快，感觉没得到应该得到的东西（钱，女人，房子，工作）。

还有我记得看到外交部说那个孩子还有那个女交通司机被杀了和他们的话没关系不仅不对，而且丢脸和尊重。 其实我还觉得那些幼儿园攻击的受害者家人更难过因为他们的丧亲是不能公之于众。那样太难过。

我觉得有两个不同的情况。

第一是几乎随机暴力事情。幼儿园刀杀很普遍的。他们觉得社会错，不敢或者不能想到政治上的原因。就觉得他们自己或者＂完美＂社会有矛盾。 还有儿童是社会的未来。去抹杀他们是攻击社会的未来。

第二是跟最近几个月的中国人去抹杀住在中国的日本人的案子。这些明显跟中国政治台上说的话有关的。

不好意思我中文有点差，还在学习。