3 ms·
These types of arguments basically always reek of bootlicking to me. It's always a vague "things were better" when the material reality of the situation is ever
by SQueeeeeL 4y ago
These types of arguments basically always reek of bootlicking to me. It's always a vague "things were better" when the material reality of the situation is everyone feels insanely economically insecure and feels a massive amount of anxiety. We're watching the aggregation of wealth by massive corporation and the loss of "good jobs", while wealth concentrates in the hands of those who already possess it.
I refuse to believe a future where me and all my community have a home and stable lives is unattainable, and anyone who tries to rationalize why we should be happy with scraps deserves their fate of a pitiful of indenture to Amazon
- malandrew 4y agoThat’s not the material reality you’ve described because you immediately followed with “…everyone feels…”. Material reality would be something measured in objective material benefits enjoyed. Everything people read and consume today teaches them to feel things are worse because doomscrolling produces greater engagement. It’s the same reason people feel “injured” (offended) by things that boomers in their day would find laughable. It’s incredibly profitable to sell people their own discontent.
- lordnacho 4y ago> objective > material benefits > enjoyed There isn't a way to transmute "stuff consumed" into enjoyment/utility/value. We can sort of guess that people who were near starvation but are now eating regularly are somehow doing better, but we are so incredibly far from that world that it's worth asking ourselves whether it is really the same thing at all to say people with more TVs in their homes are better off. You're right about doomscrolling though. But there again, people are doing it more. It adds to GDP. Are people better off?
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago[flagged]