Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Even before I could chuckle at this tardy piece of comedy, the Champagne Socialist publication New Yoker starting annoyingly soliciting about their "Cyber week Sale" with a big enough pop-up that a libertarian would consider 'violence'.

Talking about the Pot calling the Kettle black!




>the pot calling the kettle black [is] used to convey that the criticisms a person is aiming at someone else could equally well apply to themselves.

I think this is accurate here. The new yorker is opening their own slave factory is this example, not buying products from said factory. Or manufacturing cars without seatbelts or being an oppressive Lord. All while denouncing those who do the same. That may have a positive effect, even a net positive effect, but "the criticisms a person is aiming at someone else could equally well apply to themselves" because they are doing the same thing, just being aware of it. If the new yorker was a zero profit company then your point would be valid but they are instead a subsidiary of a Condé Nast which is owned by one of the richest people in the world. It's more like the Washington post (owned by bezos) writing an article about amazon's absuse of workers while also abusing their own workers.

When I tried to go back to the article, I was greeted with this message:

>You’ve run out.

>We hope you enjoyed your free article.

>Subscribe for $29.99 $6, plus get a free tote. Cancel anytime.

These dark patterns are not necessary to run a website. They are strictly profit seaking acts meant to charge you at every turn, exactlty as in the story.

So yes, the pot is calling the kettle black


I don't know if you did this intentionally, but it's funny that the comic is an equally valid criticism of the New Yorker article itself


This comic is as bad of a strawman as the New Yorker story. At least the New Yorker bothered to include humor.


I don't get it, can you please explain


I think it's the thing from the "yet you participate in society! Curious!" comic, but—incredibly, in this the year of our lord 2022—played straight.


I do not know if I can explain it, but the point is the article is mocking an imaginary version of capitalism at the same time the publication is flashing me a Sale pop-up which is real capitalism. The America media pretends at the intellectual level it is leftist but at the bean-counter level it is more hard-core than a street drug dealer. That irony of this situation prompted my response. But I would ask, not to read too much in either comments they were both made in lighter mood and were neither preceded by and not likely to be succeeded by 'deep thought'.


You don’t know if you can explain your own joke?


The question is about precision of my explanation, unlike you I have not figured out life, so bit of self-doubt.


> The America media pretends at the intellectual level it is leftist but at the bean-counter level it is more hard-core than a street drug dealer.

That's a false dichotomy (and the street drug dealer comparison is hyperbole).

Advocating for leftist ideas like a floor on the standard of living and ensuring equal opportunity doesn't contradict pursuing a smart, aggressive, and legal business strategy, except in the mind of a libertarian absolutist.


You're complaining about hyperbole and false dichotomies in defense of what is, at best, a middle-school attempt at satirizing libertarianism.


> in defense of what is, at best, a middle-school attempt at satirizing libertarianism

You didn't seem to read the comments clearly.

I defended the right to charge for an article while also satirizing libertarianism (making no comment about the quality of the article), because believe it or not, even in countries with strong social safety nets people buy and sell things.


Is your clarification that you aren't defending the article per se, but rather the right to charge for access to said article?

Sure, but it doesn't really change my point, or my comment.

> because believe it or not, even in countries with strong social safety nets people buy and sell things.

Your whole condescension here is completely unwarranted. I am well aware that there are a variety of economic systems historically and now.

Look, is it juvenile to accuse lefty/progressive publications of hypocrisy for trying to make money? Sure. And if this was all about some thoughtful criticism of capitalism then the juvenile nature of such a remark would be out of place.

But the original article was likewise completely juvenile and to be frank doesn't even really make sense. It paints a contradictory picture of Libertarianism without concerning itself with whether those contradictions exist in reality or merely in author's own understanding.

I could have responding to the OP with the same sort or "well actually..." type of response as you just did, but it would be like casting pearls before swine. The OP is not a serious intellectual work, and isn't even really that great artistically. It's just an Internet shitpost with fancy letterhead.


The implication is that the New Yorker is just as greedy as the capitalists and corporations it professes to hate.


Does the New Yorker profess to hate capitalists and corporations? Isn’t it owned by those?


I love capitalists I hate libertarians


"Death to Capitalism" shirts on sale now for $29.99!


This is textbook whataboutism, an extremely dangerous, antisocial logical fallacy

shareblue-engagement-instance-ddada612-709c-4743-a6b1-be5e27c87e0d


So is this an actual honest-to-god industry-plant astroturfing shill, or someone trying really hard to pretend to be one to push the opposite agenda?


It's a gimmick account


> shareblue-engagement-instance-ddada612-709c-4743-a6b1-be5e27c87e0d

wat


Check the profile. Someone’s throwing a fit and just saying anything to get downvotes.


ah, gotcha.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: