It's a pain with markdown.

I had this experience a short while back, and it really shook me. Granted, this was on the Internet, where people are more willing to say wild things or generally go mask-off, but I was downright flabbergasted. I'll try to summarize the various arguments without inserting my own bias:

• because they view human rights as a social or legal concept, and not inherently more important than other social or legal principles

• because we as humans haven't historically respected them, and don't respect them universally even now, so demanding respect for human rights is a form of privilege

• because the idea of human rights requires a belief that humans have special dignity above that of other creatures (this one I found especially irksome, because I found the arguments denigrating to animal rights)

• because various groups advocating for human rights don't agree on what those rights are, so blanket support for human rights is not something they can do

I'll try to find the reddit post where this took place if I can. It was... it was something. If I've misrepresented any of the arguments above, it was not intentional but only because I find them so alien that I cannot understand them properly.

I'm a waitress. As long as you're not making a mess, and you're keeping company with people who are patronizing the establishment, you're fine. You said you're filling your own water bottle? Sounds like you're making no additional work for the service staff, so don't worry about it.

Why the hell'd they make it look so much like a Switch?

We could really use a Pete Seeger or a Woody Guthrie in times like these.

It's ubiquitous.

You have fewer male ancestors than female ones.

Linking between instances is kinda weird right now, apparently. There's no good way to link to a specific post in a way that's accessible for users across instances.

Capitalism is an economic system where capital is considered a valid input to the production process, worthy of renumeration. Contrast with some other systems where labor is the only valid input.

Capital is material wealth used productively.

Capitalism empowers ownership of produced good by laborers by funding new ventures where laborers can be more self-directed than if they were forced to labor under the direction of others. Capitalism erodes control from laborers by introducing a non-labor stake in the venture. Both are true.

An artisan who sells what they produce is free to be a capitalist or not, the two are unrelated.

Such a person cannot exist in a society without private property, as "selling" is not a valid concept in such a society. Artisans in general would still exist, though, and probably more abundantly.

An artisan who has more work orders than she can fill alone can expand without the methods you describe. She can form a partnership with another artisan, and teach or otherwise share her methods of production, tools, and branding. This could be an equal partnership or something more like taking an apprentice.

The distinction between worker coöps and other businesses is important, but it's also important to recognize that coöps are a subset of businesses, not an opposing type of entity. Coöps have just as much ability to behave in a predatory manner towards consumers, and almost as much potential to seek self-perpetuation and growth at the expense of their environment. That they will be less predatory towards laborers is nice, but it's not enough to make them "safe".

That mostly predates capitalism, though.

If you're unsure which it is, you're not staring hard enough.

Directly at my groin, please. It's the best way to show appreciation for my service.