4 ms·

You make things wildly unaffordable. You make the most basic need of a human being (a roof over their head a ponzi scheme speculative investment) You destroy th

by iotb 8y ago

You make things wildly unaffordable. You make the most basic need of a human being (a roof over their head a ponzi scheme speculative investment) You destroy the middle class. You plunge everyone into debt with over- financialization. You play divisive social games to cement power structures finalizing in men vs. women politics. You destroy the family unit. You undermine men. You push male guilt. You push social trends for women to party through their most fertile years You convince women that long term monogamous relationships are prison... You turn everyone on to Tinder and glorify transient lifestyles... All because such lifestyles make various corporations richer via higher consumption.. society be damned. Optimal profit at the expense of broader society... Up until broader societal conditions drag down corporations that made it so. The cause and effect are obvious to anyone w/ two brain cells. And just to show its all for the almighty dollar, millions of dollars are pumped into studies/research of this phenomenon only to avoid the elephants in the room. We call this modern society where we pretend to not know why things are the way they are. Society optimizes for certain things like profit above all else and there are a slew of negative outcomes or things that are harmed as a result. Why would someone have a kid in the current environment? This process is pushed out to someone who either is quite wealthy and has no impact or is quite poor and is uncaring of the impact. The middle is hallowed out. It's why from anywhere from the first world EU to the US there is a big push for immigration. That too is steeped in economic factors and has little to do w/ a genuine interest in helping people. Instead of fixing core societal problems, the powers that be deem it easier to just pave over the domestic populous with new-comers who would willingly tolerate such conditions and birth new workers into the fold. The middle core of the population deems it ridiculous to have kids. The number crunchers see this as an impact to their precious economic models... and thus comes the political push to import people from places in the world who have kids in far more impoverished conditions and see 1st world countries as a step up. Not sure how this comment will go here but that's just the plain reality. A reality people like to play pretend they don't know exists. A reality people make hordes of money to ignore and further. Humanity will pay a hefty price in the years to come for these stupid games we play. Historically, various reckonings have occurred when civilizations and empires play these stupid games. Then the cycle resets and is born again only to arrive at the same juncture when people stray far enough from sound principals.

dunpeal 8y ago
You are pointing out some real problems, but your attempt to pin them all on capitalism ("the almighty dollar") is incoherent and fallacious. It's not "capitalism" turning young people to Tinder, which is dirt cheap. Capitalism as a system would much rather them start families and have lots of babies. Raising one kid yields far more purchases than a Tinder Plus subscription and a pack of prophylactics. It is certainly not the "capitalism" strawman pushing aggressive gender politics. Most of these are based on Marxist studies, and closely associated with socialist and Marxist views and movements, that is - the opposite of capitalism. In short, you invoked a bunch of very different problems with current American culture, bundled them together and strapped the collective label "capitalism" onto them, so now you have a single throat to cut to cure all that is ill with society. Unfortunately, it's not a single problem, and certainly does not have a single cause. You're also ignoring agency completely. Nobody "pushed" people to use Tinder. They could keep dating seriously and getting married at 23 like they did in the 50s. They don't do that because they don't want to.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > Unfortunately, it's not a single problem, and certainly does not have a single cause. Did they claim that? They didn't even use the word capitalism once. They simply mentioned that greed is also a problem, and you talk about how they supposedly blame it all on capitalism, and how that's just a convenient strawman to slap down. > Nobody "pushed" people to use Tinder. Yeah, because that's a simplification of a whole lot of stuff. It can be unpacked, but why even bother when you're not working along, and just go by a silly literal interpretation and point out how silly that is. > They don't do that because they don't want to. That's the start of the discussion, the comment was talking about why that is. And you just end with "it's fine that it is so because it is so", basically.
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  > Raising one kid yields far more purchases than a Tinder Plus subscription and a pack of prophylactics. That was described by the parent post. That's why the push for immigration can be traced back to increased capitalistic opportunity. > It is certainly not the "capitalism" strawman pushing aggressive gender politics. Again, he did not describe that. > You're also ignoring agency completely No, he described it in sweeping generalities eg Why would someone have a kid in the current environment? - a direct reference to the wealth-education of the middle class, where you're smart enough to maximize, but not able to ascend leveraging those choices. The primary issue with the rant is how he starts with "You" to mean a nebulous powers-that-be and then asks questions and makes statements from the perspective of the middle class. Read it again for clarity. There's nothing about his comment that hasn't been said before.

by iotb 8y ago

dunpeal 8y ago

You are pointing out some real problems, but your attempt to pin them all on capitalism ("the almighty dollar") is incoherent and fallacious. It's not "capitalism" turning young people to Tinder, which is dirt cheap. Capitalism as a system would much rather them start families and have lots of babies. Raising one kid yields far more purchases than a Tinder Plus subscription and a pack of prophylactics. It is certainly not the "capitalism" strawman pushing aggressive gender politics. Most of these are based on Marxist studies, and closely associated with socialist and Marxist views and movements, that is - the opposite of capitalism. In short, you invoked a bunch of very different problems with current American culture, bundled them together and strapped the collective label "capitalism" onto them, so now you have a single throat to cut to cure all that is ill with society. Unfortunately, it's not a single problem, and certainly does not have a single cause. You're also ignoring agency completely. Nobody "pushed" people to use Tinder. They could keep dating seriously and getting married at 23 like they did in the 50s. They don't do that because they don't want to.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
> Unfortunately, it's not a single problem, and certainly does not have a single cause. Did they claim that? They didn't even use the word capitalism once. They simply mentioned that greed is also a problem, and you talk about how they supposedly blame it all on capitalism, and how that's just a convenient strawman to slap down. > Nobody "pushed" people to use Tinder. Yeah, because that's a simplification of a whole lot of stuff. It can be unpacked, but why even bother when you're not working along, and just go by a silly literal interpretation and point out how silly that is. > They don't do that because they don't want to. That's the start of the discussion, the comment was talking about why that is. And you just end with "it's fine that it is so because it is so", basically.
ArchTypical 8y ago
> Raising one kid yields far more purchases than a Tinder Plus subscription and a pack of prophylactics. That was described by the parent post. That's why the push for immigration can be traced back to increased capitalistic opportunity. > It is certainly not the "capitalism" strawman pushing aggressive gender politics. Again, he did not describe that. > You're also ignoring agency completely No, he described it in sweeping generalities eg Why would someone have a kid in the current environment? - a direct reference to the wealth-education of the middle class, where you're smart enough to maximize, but not able to ascend leveraging those choices. The primary issue with the rant is how he starts with "You" to mean a nebulous powers-that-be and then asks questions and makes statements from the perspective of the middle class. Read it again for clarity. There's nothing about his comment that hasn't been said before.