it’s probably a little bit of both. idk, i’m not involved and disagree with his politics. but he’s a good target for what you’d need to do to change minds because reasonable explanations can get through, but he’s been poisoned by whatever cultural influences reagan imposed on his stupid little kid mind; believes in trickle down myth and such.
No, words have meaning and if you want people to understand, you need to use a word that directly conveys the meaning.
Fake news and alternative facts describe the same thing, but mean very different things to people.
Corporations have legions of marketing people to make sure that their words are used, so that e.g. if you read of a woman who sued Disney for an accident at one of their theme parks you’ll read that she sued over a “wedgie”, and not over a ripped utherus that required multiple surgeries and had the potential to cause permanent infertility. That’s the power of using the right words.
So we certainly need the right words, and “explotation” is so much more direct, understandable and powerful that “EBITDA” or “profit”).
All your suggesting to do is to constantly change words the second a corpo co-opts the meaning. That’s a losing battle by only retreating.
Your energy would be better used informing people of the meaning of the word and using it correctly, rather than making entirely new words and trying to teach everyone what it means.
It’s far from impossible. For example, carnism is a (typically unconscious and unexamined) belief system held by the vast majority of people, and it says animal exploitation, and cruelty and violence against animals can be neutral or even good.
Does it use these terms? When you go shopping, do you sausage packs with any of these terms on the package in a positive way?
“Now with 100% more cruelty! These sausages were produced with extra violence!”
I have never seen any of that. Yes, the system is based on exploitation, cruelty and violence, but these terms are explicitly avoided in any business communication, just because it’s impossible to spin them in a positive way.
Instead, meat packaging will show a happy cow on a nice pasture in the mountains, surrounded by untouched, pristine nature. Texts on the packaging emphasize how happy and well-treated the animals are.
There’s no trace of high-density indoor farming, live animal transports or slaughter houses on the packaging.
Same with exploitative labour: Look at e.g. the Amazon website. Where do you see anything about them praising themselves for exploiting low-wage workers?
We don’t need a different work, we need people to learn what they mean.
Your father does not make profit, he makes a salary/wage. Profit is the surplus revenue after expenses.
my dad does make a profit, he owns a small business.
Is he the only employee?
nope
Tell him to stop stealing from his workers.
is making a profit enough to expand your operation stealing from workers?
Which is it, a business expense or a profit?
if it’s being invested back into the company it is a business expense, if it’s going into his pocket it’s a profit.
it’s probably a little bit of both. idk, i’m not involved and disagree with his politics. but he’s a good target for what you’d need to do to change minds because reasonable explanations can get through, but he’s been poisoned by whatever cultural influences reagan imposed on his stupid little kid mind; believes in trickle down myth and such.
No, words have meaning and if you want people to understand, you need to use a word that directly conveys the meaning.
Fake news and alternative facts describe the same thing, but mean very different things to people.
Corporations have legions of marketing people to make sure that their words are used, so that e.g. if you read of a woman who sued Disney for an accident at one of their theme parks you’ll read that she sued over a “wedgie”, and not over a ripped utherus that required multiple surgeries and had the potential to cause permanent infertility. That’s the power of using the right words.
So we certainly need the right words, and “explotation” is so much more direct, understandable and powerful that “EBITDA” or “profit”).
All your suggesting to do is to constantly change words the second a corpo co-opts the meaning. That’s a losing battle by only retreating.
Your energy would be better used informing people of the meaning of the word and using it correctly, rather than making entirely new words and trying to teach everyone what it means.
I want to see corpos spin “exploitation” into something positive.
It’s far from impossible. For example, carnism is a (typically unconscious and unexamined) belief system held by the vast majority of people, and it says animal exploitation, and cruelty and violence against animals can be neutral or even good.
Does it use these terms? When you go shopping, do you sausage packs with any of these terms on the package in a positive way?
“Now with 100% more cruelty! These sausages were produced with extra violence!”
I have never seen any of that. Yes, the system is based on exploitation, cruelty and violence, but these terms are explicitly avoided in any business communication, just because it’s impossible to spin them in a positive way.
Instead, meat packaging will show a happy cow on a nice pasture in the mountains, surrounded by untouched, pristine nature. Texts on the packaging emphasize how happy and well-treated the animals are.
There’s no trace of high-density indoor farming, live animal transports or slaughter houses on the packaging.
Same with exploitative labour: Look at e.g. the Amazon website. Where do you see anything about them praising themselves for exploiting low-wage workers?