This is not grammar, this is me being confused how irritated you got that I was engaging with your words and not some hidden meaning you weren't saying.

My comment about you coming in hot is about you ignoring everything I've said in order to assume and project onto me what you think I know.

You then refused to believe me that I meant what I said and that I was taking you at your word.

I was engaging with what you said, not some hidden meaning of euphemisms, because I came into this engaging with a very specific comment you made about production.

You have made wild assumptions about what I think, believe, and understand based off your vague statements. You then got angry and irritated that I was taking you at your word.

It's like I said a normal comment about criticism of western leftists, and you assumed I was speaking in code.

Okay, let's break this down.

Kav said something. You asked him a question. He answered. You responded and mentioned a detail regarding productivity and labor which is what I was talking about. I was NOT engaging with the broader conversation between you and Kav, because that was between you two.

I didn't know it was a euphemism. I'm only getting to that point now that you're acting all pissy because someone read your words as they are.

You seem like a very unpleasant fellow. Genuinely, because you came in hot, stayed hot, and seem incapable of engaging with anything.

I'm more confused how you think I'm acting in bad faith when this appears to be you not understanding how words are used and getting irritated that someone isn't speaking coded euphemisms to you.

You ever think it might be because you are explaining what you mean poorly?

"specific person" means an exact individual. I'm not talking about an exact individual.

I came in pointing out to you that there is a subsection of leftists in the imperial core who are privileged and out of touch,

No, it's not a specific person. That's how the English language works. If it was about a specific person I'd be talking about "Gregory Foresnipe is..." but I'm not.

I'm saying that there is a subsection of leftists in the imperial core who are like this.

I'm talking about a specific person? No I'm not. I'm talking about privileged leftists in the imperial core who don't understand basic materialism.

But in today's day and age, when fewer and fewer people are going to libraries, we must evaluate whether our organization system is helping or hurting people access information.

Great point Paul, I've now become an avowed capitalist thanks to your riveting insight!

The difference is that under socialism we would not have a system that extracts the value of our labor.

For instance, if society requires everyone to work 1-3 hrs a day, cooking, cleaning, gardening, etc. That is necessary labor and those who just don't want to are not aiding the community.