"That's just your opinion man" is kind of disrespectful. Jesus was disrespecting dude by saying "I'm gonna kick your ass," and dude was responding "you're wrong, but it's not worth a serious response." It's casually dismissive. If Jesus had gone on further, the next response by dude might have been an exaggerated eye roll or "uh hu, sure buddy" communicated sarcastically.
It's like saying "your opinion isn't worthy of attention/response."
It's appropriate if someone is being aggressive towards you, but not in a discussion and certainly not in any kind of setting where there's a hope to reach consensus or change someone's mind.
Alupis isn't understanding that the slaves in the American south had a "job", it was being a slave. Anupis can't get past the idea that "job" is a description in the same way that "slavery" is a description and if you look at what it means to be a slave (to not have freedom), and what it means to have a job (to get things in return for work), you can get resources for your time (having a job) while also having no freedom (being a slave).
The original post I was responding to made the assertion that all jobs are good, but failed to understand that wage is not a measurement of labor or value produced but a measure of relative power. The original post I was responding to was asserting that a laborers power increases as there are more jobs and therefore more demand for labor, which is true. They failed to understand that unionized labor has all the same benefits, but a better distribution of wealth and more freedom. Unionization values labor while "more jobs" framed discussions values capital.
The top post in the thread was saying we are having a discussion with "job" based frame rather than a "labor" based fame.
Does the job provide value, or does the labor provide value? If labor is where the value is then why is the value of labor so low?
By choosing to frame the discussion around jobs, the person has chosen oppression of workers as a consequence whether they understand why that is or not.
It's like saying "your opinion isn't worthy of attention/response."
It's appropriate if someone is being aggressive towards you, but not in a discussion and certainly not in any kind of setting where there's a hope to reach consensus or change someone's mind.
Alupis isn't understanding that the slaves in the American south had a "job", it was being a slave. Anupis can't get past the idea that "job" is a description in the same way that "slavery" is a description and if you look at what it means to be a slave (to not have freedom), and what it means to have a job (to get things in return for work), you can get resources for your time (having a job) while also having no freedom (being a slave).
The name for this is "wage slavery": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
The original post I was responding to made the assertion that all jobs are good, but failed to understand that wage is not a measurement of labor or value produced but a measure of relative power. The original post I was responding to was asserting that a laborers power increases as there are more jobs and therefore more demand for labor, which is true. They failed to understand that unionized labor has all the same benefits, but a better distribution of wealth and more freedom. Unionization values labor while "more jobs" framed discussions values capital.
The top post in the thread was saying we are having a discussion with "job" based frame rather than a "labor" based fame.
Does the job provide value, or does the labor provide value? If labor is where the value is then why is the value of labor so low?
By choosing to frame the discussion around jobs, the person has chosen oppression of workers as a consequence whether they understand why that is or not.