Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 December 6
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 5 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 7 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
December 6
editOpposite of philanthropy?
editOpposite of philanthropy? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Misanthropy. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- One might be tempted to say capitalism (using the popular rather than the literal meaning of "philanthropy"), or profiteering for a more politically neutral term. See also war profiteering, cartel, monopoly, Rachmanism, etc. Tevildo (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, Exploitation is probably the best single antonym. Tevildo (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how "profiteering" is more neutral than "capitalism". Many capitalists have been known to be philanthropists as well. Bill Gates, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I intended profiteering to refer to general abuse of a dominant market position to make more money than is "fair", in some abstract sense. However, my main point is that misanthropy is not (in popular usage) the opposite of philanthropy. For example, Howard Hughes is the very type and acme of a misanthropist, but he still engaged in the very philanthropic act of endowing the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. And Peter Rachman himself was, so I understand, a very outgoing, affable and socially-adept person - the opposite of a misanthrope - but nobody would describe him as a philanthropist. Tevildo (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- The term "capitalist" is not inherently negative except maybe to an avowed Marxist. Etymologically, "philanthropy" and "misanthropy" are opposites, but they're not really used that way nowadays. As I recall, even some Mafia figures were known to open soup kitchens and the like, and I'm not so sure "philanthropist" is the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of Al Capone. Really, an excellent illustration of the idea would be Ebenezer Scrooge, before and after. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Is Gates a capitalist? I think the term has two quite distinct meanings, and I'm not sure Gates actually qualifies on either count. One meaning is "philosophical supporter of the free market", and I think he's at best lukewarm on that. The other meaning is "someone in the finance business", which as far as I know applies to him only in the sense that he's an investor. --Trovatore (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- If I correctly interpreted the dense prose from century-old books, capitalists are the people who benefit from the money-commodity-moremoney exchange, also known as M-C-M'. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Is Gates a capitalist? I think the term has two quite distinct meanings, and I'm not sure Gates actually qualifies on either count. One meaning is "philosophical supporter of the free market", and I think he's at best lukewarm on that. The other meaning is "someone in the finance business", which as far as I know applies to him only in the sense that he's an investor. --Trovatore (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- The term "capitalist" is not inherently negative except maybe to an avowed Marxist. Etymologically, "philanthropy" and "misanthropy" are opposites, but they're not really used that way nowadays. As I recall, even some Mafia figures were known to open soup kitchens and the like, and I'm not so sure "philanthropist" is the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of Al Capone. Really, an excellent illustration of the idea would be Ebenezer Scrooge, before and after. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I intended profiteering to refer to general abuse of a dominant market position to make more money than is "fair", in some abstract sense. However, my main point is that misanthropy is not (in popular usage) the opposite of philanthropy. For example, Howard Hughes is the very type and acme of a misanthropist, but he still engaged in the very philanthropic act of endowing the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. And Peter Rachman himself was, so I understand, a very outgoing, affable and socially-adept person - the opposite of a misanthrope - but nobody would describe him as a philanthropist. Tevildo (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how "profiteering" is more neutral than "capitalism". Many capitalists have been known to be philanthropists as well. Bill Gates, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Microsoft is a for-profit company, last I heard. Maximizing profits, i.e. accumulating more and more money (i.e. more and more "capital") is the essence of capitalism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, different people use words different ways, but to me the essence of capitalism is freedom of exchange. It's not clear to me that Gates is a big supporter of that. There are lots of people who make lots of money in radically anti-capitalist countries. --Trovatore (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- In a capitalist system, there is a natural progression from true "free market" (many small firms), to a relatively few large firms (monopolistic competition), or maybe only one significant one (monopoly or near-monopoly). That's what Gates has done. I'm not sure what you mean by "freedom of exchange", but the bottom line is that successful people and companies don't want ongoing competition, they want to defeat that competition and be kings of their particular hills. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- The point is, "capitalist" doesn't mean "businessperson". Just doesn't. There are two major senses. Ideologically, it means a classical liberal, and I don't think Gates is one (I think he might even be a Democrat). Professionally, it means someone who lends money, which of course he does because he's an investor and a big one, but it isn't his profession. --Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- You're talking libertarian idealism. I'm talking reality. But maybe you could give me an example of a "true" capitalist. And I don't mean philosophers writing books, I mean practical capitalists, i.e. those who accumulate capital (keep in mind that "capital" and "money" are synonyms in this context). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Trovatore is correct there are at least two senses of the word, and it's clear Gates is not a free market capitalist. He is obviously a capitalist if you define that as someone who derives his wealth from return on capital, whether directly held or invested. μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- To me, capitalism is about money and business - beginning and end of story. I'd like to hear of any other practical application. Feel free to educate me. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Trovatore is correct there are at least two senses of the word, and it's clear Gates is not a free market capitalist. He is obviously a capitalist if you define that as someone who derives his wealth from return on capital, whether directly held or invested. μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- You're talking libertarian idealism. I'm talking reality. But maybe you could give me an example of a "true" capitalist. And I don't mean philosophers writing books, I mean practical capitalists, i.e. those who accumulate capital (keep in mind that "capital" and "money" are synonyms in this context). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- The point is, "capitalist" doesn't mean "businessperson". Just doesn't. There are two major senses. Ideologically, it means a classical liberal, and I don't think Gates is one (I think he might even be a Democrat). Professionally, it means someone who lends money, which of course he does because he's an investor and a big one, but it isn't his profession. --Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- In a capitalist system, there is a natural progression from true "free market" (many small firms), to a relatively few large firms (monopolistic competition), or maybe only one significant one (monopoly or near-monopoly). That's what Gates has done. I'm not sure what you mean by "freedom of exchange", but the bottom line is that successful people and companies don't want ongoing competition, they want to defeat that competition and be kings of their particular hills. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, different people use words different ways, but to me the essence of capitalism is freedom of exchange. It's not clear to me that Gates is a big supporter of that. There are lots of people who make lots of money in radically anti-capitalist countries. --Trovatore (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Microsoft is a for-profit company, last I heard. Maximizing profits, i.e. accumulating more and more money (i.e. more and more "capital") is the essence of capitalism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Next time google the antonym. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have Google. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can you explain that claim? Denmark has free speech, and you have access to the internet. Are you in prison, or are you a child on a computer with parental controls? There are other search engines as well. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have Google. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- The OP's contribution history is currently under scrutiny at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: 78.156.109.166. It may be best to just overlook this for now. Rgrds. --64.85.214.127 (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
What is the name of...
edita glass that can make things look bigger? I've forgotten. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean a Magnifying glass (convex lens), or something less obvious? Dbfirs 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Magnifying glass was what I was looking for, I figured it out by myself shortly after I wrote my question. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, memory is strange. I increasingly have the same problem. Admitting that I can't remember something seems to trigger my brain to make the appropriate connections that were somehow missing when I was actively searching for them. Dbfirs 09:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can't even read your text just above, because my drug causes memory and concentration lapses (problems). But I would have them (although much less intense) even without the drug. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, memory is strange. I increasingly have the same problem. Admitting that I can't remember something seems to trigger my brain to make the appropriate connections that were somehow missing when I was actively searching for them. Dbfirs 09:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Magnifying glass was what I was looking for, I figured it out by myself shortly after I wrote my question. --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- The OP's contribution history is currently under scrutiny at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: 78.156.109.166. It may be best to just overlook this for now. Rgrds. --64.85.214.127 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)