n_n

Reply to comment by n_n in u/Ziq we need to solve our problems by n_n

n_n OP wrote

I am surprised you did not know.

I wasn't aware till Ziq pointed out. This is the first time that I saw someone mentioned it. There is still a lot that I have to learn.

2

Reply to comment by n_n in u/Ziq we need to solve our problems by n_n

n_n OP wrote (edited )

It's adequate, the struggle session that is happening in other part of Raddle is not adequate. Ziq made a post about the actions that admins should take to tackle toxicity, then when I was providing context to them to resolve a conflict that was happening people start attacking me. People that were on their side and as far as I know they didn't do nothing about them. I don't see other admins doing that so that's why I called Ziq. That's why I picked Ziq to mediate, why people are downvoitng all my posts and publicly shaming there? I thought that they were against people doing that.

for no clear reason

Their responded my comment by trying to defend the petite bourgeoisie in an anticapital forum. Defend the bourgeois is being liberal in my eyes. You my digress but I have enough reasons to be against them and to be rude to people that defend them.

All this doesn't explain why they used the self employees in that way (their ending comment) only to hurt me.

2

Reply to comment by n_n in u/Ziq we need to solve our problems by n_n

n_n OP wrote (edited )

i don't know the specific context

Thanks for the response but I think that you need to know the context here to help in solve the issue, if not your comments will make more harm than good. I will keep it constructive and there is no hurry. We can take our time if needed.

complaining that it isn't being removed fast enough is entitled and annoying

That's what I was talking about knowing the context. I'm not complaining on the timing. They already said that they will not take action and the explanation was that it was because it was not worthy of a ban. You really need to know the context to know what I'm talking about here. I never asked for people to be banned. So the problem is that they refuse to do something because they work in binary, do nothing or ban people. We agree that is not ban worthy, but saying that they won't do nothing keeps the conflicts going as they were going until now. If they don't have time then they should just say "at the moment I don't have time, I will see what I can do later", I can wait so the timing is not a problem.

−2

Reply to comment by n_n in u/Ziq we need to solve our problems by n_n

n_n OP wrote (edited )

About why they attack me saying that self employees are capitalists after that I said that I care for the exploited. existential1 at least was deflecting and trying to take the conversation to them and not about the group that I was talking about, but they recognized that they weren't the employees. Implying that self employees are capitalist was a low blow.

The lack of action about the ableist and sexist language that I receive by existential1 because they couldn't answer my question is other. Why Ziq kept saying that I was asking for a ban? Why can't engage with the abusive user like other admins and mods do?

−1

n_n OP wrote (edited )

I'm not banning them for what they said to you because it doesn't warrant a ban.

I don't know why you're under the impression that I ban people that don't think like I think.

I don't know why you're under the impression that I asking you to ban people. It's that all you can do? That's why you didn't do nothing? Now I understand why conflicts keep going here.

Just because they say self employed black hairdressers don't vote for Trump, that doesn't make them some kind of monster.

Wanting to abolish work and recognizing that most people have no choice but to work in order to survive are 2 different things. There is no rule on that forum saying people can't defend self employed people.

So self employed are in fact employees petite bourgeois, that's what do you think? Damn, you must be a gigantic piece of shit to think that self employed hairdresser women are capitalist employers. What's next, are you gonna say that they are also the police? Seriously, what's wrong with you?

−4

n_n OP wrote

You people can downvote all you want but it won't change nothing if you don't give arguments. u/Ziq you are not explaining why you won't going to do something about the ableism and the sexism. About the bootlickers, what happened to abolish work and the wage system? Why people are defending employers here? What's the problem with my statement against the private property of those employers when poor people is being jailed and workers are being exploited and these groups are being part of that exploitation? And why are people in Raddle are more concerned with what is happening in Reddit than what is happening here? This is a let down really. Fuck work and fuck wage system and fuck those who perpetuate this system.

−3

n_n OP wrote (edited )

"Maybe you don't understand" isn't an ableist statement

"your inability to understand" is ableist, the other adds to this one. And not knowing that I'm disable doesn't make it less ableist when they are speaking in despicable manner on disabilities like i.e receptive aphasia.

About the bootlicking I should have explain my self, sorry for that. I listed them here because I think that f/anticapital doesn't have active moderators. Please, try to take capitalist apologist out of radical forums, specially out of that forum in particular. People are being exploited as much by the petite bourgeois as the other employees. I saw enough protest against homeless people by "concerned" mom and pop business owners because they "harm their business" to know that they are as oppressive as anyone else. Again more than 50 percent of the homeless in the US are black. If I have to defend anyone would be the poor and exploited. Not the employers, be big or small.

−3

n_n OP wrote (edited )

They had just made the point that self-employed hairdressers in their community are also small businesses

Yes they did, they also made the point that they are not the same group than the mom and pop business. Read it again:

My point is that "small business" as a term includes very large "small" businesses, "mom and pop" shops, and self employed people.

So that argument can't hold up. They said, the part that I specifically contested, that the site was "not talking about "mom and pop" micro businesses."

This definition you give of mom and pop stores would include the self-employed black hairdressers they used to make their argument. Including people with zero employees.

Minimum amount of employees is at least 1, to include the zero employees it should be "with a minimum or none employees". But let's say that we interpreted that part differently, now DO YOU THINK that I'm talking about those who are non-employers like black women hairdresser and anarchist bookfairs when I said (before the"rob and burn" in all-caps) "The vast majority (88 percent) of small businesses employer firms have fewer than 20 employees and nearly 40 percent of all enterprises have under $100k in revenue." and the "petit bourgousie", and then clarify that I wasn't talking about the self employees. Can you explain me how the fuck can you interpret that I'm talking about the non-employer when I said that and why they keep talking about that? They said that the statistics don't include them so what is the problem anyway? They stated that they are not the mom and pop business so even if we put them in the statistics the number among the employers that support Trump won't going to change, their blame in perpetuating this oppressive circle is not washing away by accounting the non-employers that were left out. I'm sure that if their were included the total percent of Trump supporters will be less but as I said the number of those that I singled out in the employer group would be the same. So why they keep bringing that up? How the fuck do you interpret that I'm talking about PoC hairdresser and anarchist bookfairs when I was saying and clarifying constantly all that?

−3

n_n OP wrote (edited )

they seem to be saying is that self-employed aren't included in this grouping

I know, I can read you know.

You can think all business owners deserve to be robbed

When did I INCLUDED this groups and when did I SAY that all business owners deserve to be robbed? I already said in the whole fucking discussion that I didn't talk about that so you can't claim ignorance. For some reason they think that I'm talking about all business owners when I single out a very specific kind of business owners. I already explain myself of what I was talking about and they keep bringing that. We know that they are not included so whats' the problem? What they keep bringing that?

largely consists of white millionaires with dozens of employees.

I understand that they are included but on what are you basing that are a majority? Because it is stated that they are a minority in the sources that I linked. The self employed are listed as other group in the census. So I don't understand what they have to do with the "mom and pop micro businesses" who are employers.

think this misunderstanding came about because English isn't your first language

I understand English very well. I don't have any "inability" to understand English. My English is not limited to read, it's limited to write. Ableism is discrimination against people with disabilities or who are perceived to have disabilities. A disability is any condition that makes it more difficult for a person to do certain activities or interact with the world around them. Talking about my perceived "inability" to understand is very ableist. So I request that you do something about it and stop making apology fo that.

It is, by and large, not talking about "mom and pop" micro businesses.

My point is that "small business" as a term includes very large "small" businesses, "mom and pop" shops, and self employed people. So we're both talking about self employed people (maybe you don't understand your own reference table?).

I said that I'm not talking about self employed people so what they keep saying that we are talking about self employed people? First they try to brush off the blame on mom and pop business, then they deflect the conversation toward the self employees. I was very clear of what I was talking about. So why they keep bringing that? Can you explain me?

−3

n_n OP wrote (edited )

By saying "you are missing the point". Inability means lack of ability or capacity.

I still fail to see where he was defending small businesses.

Edit: That's not relevant to this forum. But why they are talking "large bussines" and that the article is not "about mom and pop" stores if not to defend you know... the mom and pop business that I said that it should be robbed and burned. If you try to defend the private property of the petite bourgeois in a forum that is called "anticapital", you can't call yourself surprised when anticapitalists tell you that you should get fuck off. What they are were doing it's called sealioning, and it's not the first time that this user do that.

0

n_n OP wrote (edited )

LOL I will tell liberals to get the fuck off all what I want, more in an anticapitalist forum. If you are not going to talk about the ableism then what are you doing here? This forum is about the ToS. The "inability" to not understand is talking about my intelligence. I'm disable by the way and that user knows that. They are who are commenting my comments, they bring me to that and I will respond. u/Ziq are you gonna say something about these liberal bootlickers?

−3

n_n OP wrote

inability to understand the thing

Feel free to continue to stay on your galaxy brain anticapitalist soapbox

LOL, sure I'm the galaxybrain.jpg here. It must burn that you need to resort to attack a person abilities to defend your arguments against an uneducated disable Latinx who didn't finish high school and barely can't write in English. XD Here is a truth, poverty or lack of "education" doesn't make us less capable. This is forum is called f/Anti-capital, if you want an award for liberal bootlicking go to r/Anarchism, they probably will give you Reddit gold.

1

n_n OP wrote (edited )

entire population of business owners

NOT 👏 ALL 👏 BUSINESS 👏 OWNERS

But these sorts of surveys also habitually fail to accurately survey young people and PoC

Again, when I talked about that? I'm not contesting that. And with your "not talking about "mom and pop" micro businesses." You clearly responded to my statement. You were not talking about PoC and you are trying to divert the conversation. If you have a criticism with the article that's fine, but that's wasn't your concern since you specifically talked about my statement.

And the statistics

You still keep bringing that when I never talked about those groups. I understand your criticism with the article on that. But when I talk about burn and rob mom and pop bussiness I'm not talking about kids and PoC. So stop talking about something that I didn't mentioned.

liberal hysteria

LOL you are who jumped to defend the "mom and pop" business owners. I care for the poor who are exploited by them. Like the homeless, who more than the 50% are Black.

3

n_n OP wrote (edited )

My point is ROB AND BURN THE MOM AND POP BUSINESSES.

term includes very large "small" businesses

They are not the majority as you seem to imply, that's what the links that I presented says. You are not making an argument in how they are the majority and how are related with what I was saying.

maybe you don't understand your own reference table

I do, it says clearly that those very large business that you are pointing for whatever reason are not the majority, and it's talking about the "mom and pop" business. You said that it don't so maybe you don't know what the fuck are you talking about.

It's well documented that surveys in the US do not accurately or well include PoC.

Again, who is talking about that? Edit: If you want to talk about race, people of color are the most affected by poverty. Both the petite and the big bourgeoisie perpetuate their exploitation and marginalization. So why are you defending them?

self employed

According with the Census the average annual sales for the nation's 24.8 million nonemployers is only $46,978. And the survey doesn't state that they include them. So it's impossible that this are the "very large business" that you were talking about. And I never said nothing about them.

But that seems to be what you're conflating

LOL look who is talking

what seems to be your inability to understand the thing you're using to frame your argument.

Nice ableism, I'm pretty well able to understand when a liberal is talking shit. Go fuck you self.

1

n_n OP wrote (edited )

And I was talking about the US Census Bureau statistics:

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ase/data/tables.html

Also, articles like this and many others routinely do not poll PoC who are self employed

Who is talking about the self employees? You didn't talk about the self employees and didn't I, you referred to the "very very large businesses in the US", "businesses that have up to 7million in annual revenue and up to 50 employees." and that "It is, by and large, not talking about "mom and pop" micro businesses."

A "mom and pop" business is:

A small, independent, usually family-owned, controlled, and operated business that has a minimum amount of employees, has only a small amount of business volume, and is typically not franchised, therefore open for business only in a single location.

Wild overreaction

I bet that you are one of the Bernie shills in r/Anarchism. Go to Reddit to shill for the petite bourgeoisie, this is a radical forum and we don't tolerate liberals.

1

n_n OP wrote

It is, by and large, not talking about "mom and pop" micro businesses.

That is not stated in any part of the article, why are you bootlicking the petite bourgeoisie? The vast majority (88 percent) of small businesses employer firms have fewer than 20 employees and nearly 40 percent of all enterprises have under $100k in revenue. This is an aticapital forum, get the fuck off with your liberal bullshit.

1