I do, generally, but I also know that people may not get it not through lack of intelligence, but through neurodivergence. At the bare minimum, if someone asks for clarification it should be given.
There are some cogent points in there, but the author fails to realize that the problem with capitalism is the capitalists themselves. The issues they complain about are the inevitable consequence of allowing capitalists to own the means of production rather than the people. Capitalists care less about being patriotic and doing good deeds than they do about their capital holdings, and an investment in corruption and cronyism is one of the safest bets capitalists with sufficient power can make.
You don’t have faith in the audience’s intelligence?
I do, generally, but I also know that people may not get it not through lack of intelligence, but through neurodivergence. At the bare minimum, if someone asks for clarification it should be given.
How far are you supposed to take the clarification?
Enough that the other party can understand.
Does this apply to authors and artists too?
Should all metaphors have an explanation?
There’s a pretty big difference between literature and art, and online comments.
Do neurodivergent people not get to enjoy literature and art?
They do, sure. They also are able to know that what they are consuming is literature and art, and not a random user being deliberately obtuse.
I disagree.
I feel like if you’re able to enjoy literature and art you’re able to read internet comments too.
Poe’s Law exists for a reason. One person’s sarcasm could just as easily be another’s genuine take.
Poe’s Law isn’t even codified in most countries.
Sure, but even the most backwards countries at least have some version of Cole’s Law
Are we talking about poeslaw or coleslaw here?
Even though the view you expressed is a joke, there are people whose real life politics are a joke.
They have a point though.
There are some cogent points in there, but the author fails to realize that the problem with capitalism is the capitalists themselves. The issues they complain about are the inevitable consequence of allowing capitalists to own the means of production rather than the people. Capitalists care less about being patriotic and doing good deeds than they do about their capital holdings, and an investment in corruption and cronyism is one of the safest bets capitalists with sufficient power can make.
The question you should be asking is does the audience have enough faith in some random commenter’s intelligence.