My comment does have content; it rejects your interpretation and also reasserts something: that people (mostly in the English speaking world) aren't capable of rational discourse about socialism or redistribution or inequality because these are all Communism-adjacent topics, and they've been taught that there's no more evil thing than Communism, and therefore these topics are fraught with danger.
Anyone wishing to discuss anything even tangentially related to the aforementioned topics must carefully coach their words with disclaimers like "well, of course socialism doesn't work" and "of course Communism is authoritarian and evil", lest anyone even thinks they are supporting Stalinism or whatever.
Then you get the "history lessons" about death tolls and whatnot, and it's a really tiring topic. Or someone will mention teenagers sometimes go through a phase where they are drawn to communism because they don't understand life, or something trite like that.
So it's best to avoid, in English speaking forums, mention of redistribution, income inequality, or socialism; or if you cannot help yourself, then you must add lots of disclaimers that you are not a socialist and that you know that Communism is evil, or you'll engage in..
... I was going to say "conversations like this one", but this one is pretty mild so far, thankfully.
My final thought is that what I said is very descriptive of how these topics tend to go here on HN; it was just an observation. Not a treatise.
> that people (mostly in the English speaking world) aren't capable of rational discourse about socialism or redistribution or inequality because these are all Communism-adjacent topics
I agree, but for the opposite reason. As soon as I replied to you, you stopped talking about the topic itself and started communicating how tired you were, and how laborious talking about all this is. That's why you can't have a rational discourse on this stuff.
But other people can, and do. And no one stops them.
> Maybe this assertion of yours didn't help? Are you willing to consider this?
I'll consider anything if it's mentioned. If you just said "Ah - I see what happened here. What I actually meant was ..." about 3 comments ago, we'd have had a regular conversation. I honestly don't understand this approach - even here you don't just say what you mean. You ask whether an assertion didn't help as though you aren't sure yourself.
I have much more success just talking plainly. Makes it much more fun and productive to talk about this stuff.
Plainly speaking, your assertion didn't help, since you put in my mouth words (or rather, meaning) I didn't say. That is not conducive to productive conversation.
My suggestion: next time instead of claiming what the other person meant, ask them what they mean. That way I think you will truly have "more success".
Does this sound acceptable to you? If it doesn't, I don't think we can continue having any kind of meaningful conversation.
I do understand that psychologically speaking, at this point it will be hard for you to back down or make any concessions. Note how you didn't even apologize for your mistaken claim, nor even acknowledge when I called you out on it explicitly. Fight this urge to be stubborn.
I've clearly laid out what I thought your response said, and what I think about that. Why reply with zero courtesy and zero content?