You don’t get punished if you give up your citizenship and move to another country, and then stop paying taxes to America. You don’t get punished if you decide to be homeless instead of paying your landlord 2K/mo to exist.
But realistically, you don’t have a meaningful amount of choice when it comes to the bourgeoisie/government due to the difference in power.
OK, lets do a reading comprehension exercise. You have identified that it would be absurd to suggest that those two are meaningful choices, so can you think of a more sensible way to interpret what I’ve said if I’m not suggesting that?
Don’t condescend when you are failing basic, basic reading comprehension. Middle school children use and understand rhetorical irony.
Since I obviously am not expressing that participation in paying taxes and being exploited by capitalism are meaningful choices, hence why I spelled out how impractical the alternatives are; homelessness and/or uprooting your entire life and finding a foreign country that will accept you, I must mean the opposite, that you don’t have a realistic choice in the matter.
If you’re autistic and have difficulty with this type of thing, I can give more examples, this is such a common rhetorical device, I’m genuinely surprised you didn’t understand after rereading the post. I’m certain you’ve seen it before or had other people use it in conversation.
Well thats demonstrably not true, I dont get punished if i dont shop with amazon.
You don’t get punished if you give up your citizenship and move to another country, and then stop paying taxes to America. You don’t get punished if you decide to be homeless instead of paying your landlord 2K/mo to exist.
But realistically, you don’t have a meaningful amount of choice when it comes to the bourgeoisie/government due to the difference in power.
Oh ofcourse, righhhhht just set sail and abandon all family and friends OOOORRR be homeless.
You’ve certainly proved me wrong there!
OK, lets do a reading comprehension exercise. You have identified that it would be absurd to suggest that those two are meaningful choices, so can you think of a more sensible way to interpret what I’ve said if I’m not suggesting that?
Explain it to me then, Einstein.
Don’t condescend when you are failing basic, basic reading comprehension. Middle school children use and understand rhetorical irony.
Since I obviously am not expressing that participation in paying taxes and being exploited by capitalism are meaningful choices, hence why I spelled out how impractical the alternatives are; homelessness and/or uprooting your entire life and finding a foreign country that will accept you, I must mean the opposite, that you don’t have a realistic choice in the matter.
If you’re autistic and have difficulty with this type of thing, I can give more examples, this is such a common rhetorical device, I’m genuinely surprised you didn’t understand after rereading the post. I’m certain you’ve seen it before or had other people use it in conversation.