I think you're both misunderstanding what I'm trying to say and adding 80% auxiliary construction which I don't find helpful as it adds a lot that I did not say, did not imply and do not agree with. Feels borderline bad faith. I'm trying hard not to take it that way. Hence why am responding.

For example nowhere I imply that the responses to the labour market are natural. The capital system isn't natural. Yet, that doesn't mean the system doesn't create material incentives for people to act in specific ways. I don't naturalize anything. I take the system as it is and ask how would certain changes in the material conditions affect some other variable.

I'm using the guy and the girl as an example of one part of society in order to explore how capitalism affects them in this narrow context of drivers of polarization. Not as a target to moralize their actions as just or unjust, or emparhize with or anything like that. Side note - if this historically privileged class is struggling, everyone else has it worse.

The last thing I'm gonna say is - I disagree that the racist response to the labour market is primarily a product of the settler-colonial nature of this country. I think that colonial nature of the country plays a role in addition to it but is not primary. Am of immigrant descent from a place that has not touched settler-collonialism and people facing this in my community (in Canada) who can't find jobs that are now filled by newer immigrants are making the same conclusions. Heck this effect is now starting to show up back home after capital recently began importing temporary foreign labour without a labour hsortage, because they finally figured out they can depress wages this way. It's a post-"communist" country so the capitalist class is fairly new and it's still learning the ropes.

Again - I am not moralizing the new or preexisting workers. Everyone is trying to get by and feed their kids.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You guys always pull out "bad faith" when you don't like how visible your underlying values are in what you say.

I'm not saying it's wrong to look at these groups, I'm saying you're looking at them wrong because you lack a deeper understanding of how this system came to be and why it functions the specific way it does. Whether you intend to do what you do is not what defines the consequences of what you do. When you tried to construct a sympathizing narrative, you didn't talk about any vulnerable groups, you didn't talk about indigenous peoples, you only talked about the most privileged groups of people in this system. Yes, that says something more than what you want the words to say, and you are also responsible for that.

"Racism isn't because of settler-colonialism because I am a settler and other settlers like me engage in racism." I can't think of a clearer example than this to demonstrate this misunderstanding. Whiteness is a fluid category, it does not literally refer to the melanin content and physical attributes of a person's body, it is about privilege. White Europeans (Irish, Italian, French, Greek, Slavic, etc.) were historically racialized and marginalized incidentally in this country, experienced systemic disadvantage, but certainly do not experience racism today; black and African Canadians still do. There are also differences in privilege delineated by gender, sexuality, ability, and class within those groups, that does not mean racism isn't specific to some and only benefits some. Your being an immigrant means you are potentially open to discrimination along those same lines, but also means you participate in racism and settler-colonialism by merit of your privilege over First Nations and indigenous peoples; whom are also racialized. Racism exists to naturalize the subordination of others, it literally came into being through settler-colonialism, and being a racialized settler does not exempt you from benefiting from that racism.

You are taking effects as causes, and yes, by dojng that you are naturalizing these things as inevitable human reactions that cannot be curbed. Whether you want to or not, that projects a moral meaning onto those things.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know who "you guys" are and now I think this is definitely bad faith. I don't even disagree with a lot of what you said in general. But deliberately ignoring parts of what I said in order to focus on others whose meaning changes when ignoring those parts, putting yet more words I did mot say or imply in my mouth tells me we're done here.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

I'm serious when I say I was being nice and read your comments graciously and intentionally. No, this does not misrepresent what you said, what you said simply does not have the meaning and effect that you wanted it to. I didn't ignore a single thing, and you're awfully full of yourself if you expect people to literally quote every word of your comments when they criticize you; we don't even do that for professionals.

"You guys," are obnoxious Reddit/Lemmy guys who insist they know about something they clearly do not know well enough about, and would rather pretend that their critics are just making up things (the exact kind of person who would refuse to engage in self-criticism in any worthwhile way). I don't think "bad faith" has any meaning anymore because we have so many men who behave like this and take any unwanted criticism as purposefully misleading attacks. Nice attempt to force some self-victimization in here though, very in line with how you've behaved so far.

Don't try to act serious if you aren't ready to be serious then.