yes.
i don't like causing people harm; it's an accident, and i try to make it clear that i am sorry. but i also want to explain how/why i made my mistake, for them and for me to both understand how to prevent it happening again, and to make it clear that it wasn't intentional.
'oh so you're not sorry?' fuck off.
NTs are the most uncommunicative people i have ever met.
'your dad was a sacrifice that i'm willing to have made'
syndicalism is a tendency of libertarian socialism. it was anarchists engaging in — typically violent — direct action that bred the popular labour movement, women's suffrage, the abolition of racial segregation, and others.
How did a philosophy of minimized government involvement contribute to the regulations and enforcement mechanisms around our labor laws?
… because we live in a society? the State needs labour, but if all the labourers refuse to sell themselves until labour-buyers stop X, then the State may decide very graciously to abolish the practise of X. so the theory of syndicalism goes: rinse and repeat till you have eroded all the power of labour-buyers, and you can seize the workplace and cut out the State.
the same 'literally nothing' that currently stops us from ending starvation, poverty, homelessness, war…
people and ideology create the institutions which (re)produce and enforce a status quo. this is not inherently bad, and it would not be significantly different under any other 'system'. we are all the state so long as we do nothing different.
i like this quote, from the end of part 3:
There is a strong tendency to speak of the machine as solving problems, when, in fact, really, it is the program which describes to the machine what the machines do. This is overlooked. I think a great deal of confusion arises from this.
It is not that we do not have adequate machines to solve our problems many times, but rather we lack adequate descriptions of how to solve the problem. And this is a very important point to understand.
— Richard Hamming, Computer And The Mind Of Man, Episode 1: Logic By Machine
Per the March All Hands discussion […]
i guess from experience that this was neither 'all hands' nor a 'dicussion'. it was 'whoever['s logged in before office hours| doesn't want to enjoy their lunch] gets to look at boomer memes and dull graphs for 2 hours while listening to the latest round of edicts graciously handed down by the Board.'
if you missed it, and you're lucky, they recorded it. if you're very lucky: you get an email with the slide deck and talking points for what could've just been an email to begin with.
indoctrination is when words
what a harmful, elitist, high technocratic, economistic, no-true-scotsman take: someone who doesn't view the world in pure quantitative terms and understand precisely a dialect of jargon has no valuable insight?
why 'productivity' specifically? why not GDP? or GPI? or SPI? or HDI? or HPI? or GBMI (Goodhart's Bad Metric Index)?
you're right that this character wouldn't be part of a 'solution', under current conditions, because it would be formulated by a well-funded political thinktank, specialising in number-go-big policy, tacked to the end of a dredged report with absolutely no involvement from measly imperial subjects.
this assumes that:
with the increase in 'productivity' over the last century, if we reduced our expectations, and stopped letting monopoly money run our entire society, and stopped burning surplus resources because it's 'unsold' or would drive down prices: we wouldn't need to work even 20% what is expected of us now.
everyone would have more time to support each other, pursue their interests, and do other things that really matter.
don't conflate 'work' with 'labour' or 'doing literally anything'.