• testfactor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    You’re moving the goalposts though, you realize that right?

    Your initial position was that you have to have exploited people to be worth a billion dollars (with an implicit “directly exploited,” since if you can’t make any money without indirectly exploiting people, which would make your point even more pedantic than I’m being.)

    Other people later exploiting others to profit off your product is irrelevant. Hell, it’d be irrelevant if you made your billion dollars and then started exploiting people yourself. You still would have, in fact, become a billionaire without exploiting people to do so.

      • testfactor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Sure, but if that’s the argument, then everyone who has ever bought a laptop that shipped with Windows on it is equally guilty.

        Perhaps even moreso. Those people are giving money to Microsoft. He took a billion dollars away from them.

        But like, this is classic motte and baily. Your initial position was “all billionaires exploit labor for profit,” but when under scrutiny you just retreat to “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, so he’s guilty by virtue of simply participating in the system.”