Not judging and am genuinely curious. Am asking here because this version of the "ask" community doesn't have a "no politics" rule. Again, I'm not here to bash, this has just been on my mind for a while. This question has two components that are both relevant to capitalism and communism.
So we should start off with the context that capitalism, love it or hate it, is very preachy. Capitalists, like Communists with Communism, like the idea that as many nations as possible are Capitalist. This is regardless of a nation's properties.
At the same time, the very nature of the Earth is not equal opportunity. Much like how one person can be born with better eyesight or athleticism than another person, one nation can exist with more natural valuables than another nation. You certainly aren't going to find people moving to Australia "because the rainforests are nice".
Natural valuables, however, are valuables nevertheless. Did you strike gold or valuable plant life in your native region? You can snag it from the Earth and drag it into the economic system and money will unquestionably pour in. Did you try to find valuables in your Saharan nation but can only find sand? Too bad, nobody is going to buy your sand.
That means that capitalist prosperity is not equal opportunity. One nation's maximum possible level of capitalist prosperity could be levels lower than another nation's maximum possible level of capitalist prosperity. At the same time, this does not stop the classic Capitalist view that Capitalism should be ubiquitous and the same everywhere. Also at the same time, there is no obligation to create a crutch.
Along comes Communism (by that I refer to hard Communism, since there are many highly pick-and-choose versions of it). Communism tries to acknowledge a lack of being equal opportunity and so it sets up a system where everything, from parts of the environment to the people themselves, are given roles based on their skills and needs, abandoning mutual exchange as a backbone. However, partially going back to the part about people themselves not being equal opportunity, this leads to a hierarchy of respect based on one's work and skills. Are you a very sickly person who can't afford to take part in the wolf pack, someone whose needs overshadow the little providable skill? You will, in many circumstances, be put on the back burner (note that wolves are bad model here, they care for their less fortunate). Same with the environment.
And to be fair, this is a valid question for many other ideologies as well. Libertarianism especially, if you live in a world where people have the liberty to leave people behind without the guilt of having been called murderers (since you're acting on your liberties).
How do you explain this away and/or stray from the conventional form of your ideology (in a doctrinal way or maybe in the form of little habits you do) so that your approach makes things a little more equal opportunity (for example, my employer made a system to cycle errands according to employee sleep issues)?
You prove my point. There's a difference between ways of communicating that go against the rules of language and ways of communicating that simply, to some people, seem to overuse it. My original message had no typos.
There's nothing stopping a sound mind that wants to understand it from understanding it. Or this sound mind could also, in theory, ask for a paraphrasing, and maybe the asker would have the courtesy to elaborate in some way.
Treating someone as having committed an offense worse than using slurs, just due to the way they explained something in the style of normal speech and language rules, is at least two levels of escalation above that and unprovoked.