this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
632 points (96.5% liked)

Political Memes

1974 readers
703 users here now

Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Squirrels manage to live without capitalism and "worth". Their trees aren't "owned" and leased out by different squirrels that require them to spend a third of their day foraging for acorns not to eat, but to give the treelords so they have the basic need of shelter.

Can you even consider that how you think about life is a direct result of brainwashing?

[–] hapablap@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Hardly worth engaging with someone who immediately starts with a strawman argument. I never said anything about worth or owned. But ironically I think most would consider the squirrel pretty hard working. I don't think many squirrels expect someone else to build their house.

[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The worth comment was in reference to the image. All I did was compare a natural system versus our master slave one, challenging your argument. I guess I should have asked you to define work first, but instead you ignored the point and picked out the part that you thought best supported your argument.

Squirrels do work. But their work directly benefits and is essential to their survival. Also, older squirrels built their houses by planting the trees their younger generations now live in... For free.

[–] hapablap@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 days ago

Hard to argue one way or another with the one sentence statement in the original post. I mentioned that a social safety net is important but that there should be an expectation of work. Work doesn't necessarily mean toiling in a factory for some wealthy capitalist. Ideally it means work towards self-improvement, which can mean a variety of things, including toiling in a factory.

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 1 points 11 hours ago

Alas, that's a misidentification of the strawman fallacy there, reading implication between the lines that was not there, as well as also mistaken about what was referred to on the lines.

Good effort looking out for fallacies though.