That sounds suspiciously like the "true communism has never been tried!" bit I have heard so often.
I don't particularly care about capitalism, myself, but the endless shallow attempts to tie whatever woe is being discussed to it is terribly reminiscent of how I used to hear about problems being the inevitable result of our nation turning away from Christ or whatever.
> That sounds suspiciously like the "true communism has never been tried!" bit I have heard so often.
Then you need to read my comment more deeply. Yes, it's adjacent to that no-true-Scotsman. The difference is I'm pointing out the inevitably of such, cf Goodhart's law. Just like implementing communism inevitably results in a concrete model that differs from the ideal, which will then be optimized for, the same thing is happening to capitalism. The objective difference is that it has taken capitalism longer to precess, but that's not particularly exceptional given the lasting power of say monarchy.
> I don't particularly care about capitalism
By your comments, you effectively do. You can't make an argument and then feign nihilism.
> the endless shallow attempts to tie whatever woe is being discussed to it is terribly reminiscent of how I used to hear about problems being the inevitable result of our nation turning away from Christ or whatever
Sure, there is always much groupthink and false attribution. Still, specific arguments need to be judged on their own merits. Reflexively opposing the prevailing groupthink is just another type of following.
Imagine someone keeps making this odd squawking noise in some language you do not understand, every time there is a discussion where something remotely negative is discussed. You don't have to really care about what that noise means, or its opposite, to not want to hear it anymore. That's all. "Capitalism has failed" is that squawk, because who knows what will be put in its place but just the sheer amount of hearing it all the time is irritating. That's what I mean by mentioning how shallow it is as a critique, it's just this sound people keep making.
> Imagine someone keeps making this odd squawking noise in some language you do not understand, every time there is a discussion where something remotely negative is discussed. You don't have to really care about what that noise means, or its opposite, to not want to hear it anymore. That's all. "Capitalism has failed" is that squawk, because who knows what will be put in its place but just the sheer amount of hearing it all the time is irritating. That's what I mean by mentioning how shallow it is as a critique, it's just this sound people keep making.
Try as I might, I cannot come up with a consistent good faith reading of your comments.
You're tired of hearing about something, yet not so tired that you won't create arguments about it by pulling in more distant topics? And when I try to connect with what seems to be your larger concern, you'll say you're just bored of the whole topic? All while ostensibly wanting to hear discussion of a related issue by reading this thread?
The best I can come up with is some kind of coping mechanism. If you're bored of the discussion, just stop responding. But perhaps next time, don't throw out the false dichotomy red herring.
You've made this way more complicated than it needs to be: "I'm tired of hearing about something ... STOP MAKING THAT NOISE!"
Try to imagine someone on Hacker News who followed your every comment. Should you complain about something, they mention that this is the result of a world which has turned away from Christ, or has not embraced TimeCube, whatever. Just over and over again. You'd get sick of it, right? That's how I feel about the squawk of "capitalism has failed us." It's not much more complicated than "Your probable alternate wasn't that great, either."
It appears "way more complicated than it needs to be", because I'm a second person with my own perspective, and I don't agree that your being bored of the argument constitutes a logical rebuttal. As I said, if you're bored of the topic, you didn't and don't need to engage with it. Starting an argument and then supporting it with your own disinterest is a very odd tack.
Furthermore you keep referencing this "probable alternative" bogeyman while completely ignoring that my criticism is coming from a place of reform rather than wholesale replacement. It's likely everything sounds like "squawking" to you because you're not listening to the specifics of what anyone says. It's very odd that you want to engage with the topic just enough to reject it. It takes all types, I guess.
You're equating hearing similar criticisms from many different people, in the form of message board comments, to a single individual following you around and sonically assaulting you? Respectfully, you may want to see a psychologist.
I don't particularly care about capitalism, myself, but the endless shallow attempts to tie whatever woe is being discussed to it is terribly reminiscent of how I used to hear about problems being the inevitable result of our nation turning away from Christ or whatever.