Exploitation according to the Oxford Dictionary:
>the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work
The crux of the issue seems to be the definition of "unfairly". Who's to say what's fair?
"Exploitation" has become nothing but an anti buzzword; yet another word divorced from its meaning. We're seeing it thrown around more frequently as the rationale to shut down our legal blogs and otherwise persecute us.
Why do they do this? Well, they don't have as much success at labeling things pornography that aren't pornography, since everyone understands what constitutes porn. So, they try to paint things they don't like as exploitative, and therefore bad, since it's more subjective of a term.
So if exploitation means treating someone unfairly, who, then, is the arbiter of fairness? Despite what antis want you to think, it's open to interpretation. A matter of opinion.
Turn on the TV and all day long, you will notice children being exploited (see, a little unqualified goy can do that, too). Look at all the children being used for commercials by multinationals to sell products, being paid a penance for their work, which is pretty much guaranteed to yield a return. Children being paid a couple thousand for a commercial to sell a toy, or junk food. How do I, as the viewer, know that these children will have a successful future? Or, am I, as the consumer, expected to just forget about these souls I'll never see again after the 30-second spot, purchase the product like a drone, and forget about them like yesterday's news?
Even the use of children in the cartoon and children's movie industry raises the scepter of exploitation. If you have a little boy voice actor being paid even 100k to play a character, in a movie that will earn millions in sales, is that fair? Again, who's to say?
The thing is, I am not a communist. I like capitalism. The issue is with the hypocrisy of the antis, whPost too long. Click here to view the full text.