[dang]

When people start arguing generically about capitalism, socialism, communism, etc., that's the kind of tangent I'm talking about. Such internet forum discussions are extremely repetitive, which makes them off topic here. Plus they're flammable, plus they get dumber the longer they go on.

[starbeast]

But the article itself is a critique of modern capitalism in general. Yes it was using watches to make the point, but it wasn't about watches.

Right from the outset this is made clear. The watch being talked about hasn't been donated to a museum of watches, it has been donated to a museum of capitalism. Even the title was chosen to make it entirely explicit where they were going with the article.

To then say that people shouldn't comment generically about capitalism regarding an article that is explicitly about capitalism, would seem a stretch too far in trying to keep this place neat and tidy.

I felt it was a bit like if everyone were to be restricted to discussing pencil manufacture, should Leonard Read's 'I, Pencil' be the topic of discussion. Yes, the text describes making pencils, but it isn't about pencils.

[dang]

That's all fine but a comment that "capitalism [is] buying shit and lying about it to sell it for higher" is obviously unsubstantive. Unsubstantive plus generic is a bad combination for thoughtful discussion.

I don't think it's hard to see what we're trying to avoid here.

[starbeast]

I agree that you have more of a point in saying that it could have had more substance to it, than in claiming that it is somehow a tangent from the article.