5 ms·

Bombastic click bait morality. IPhones are affordable because of wealth inequality. Oil is cheap because of wealth inequality. Organic food is purchasable bec

Bombastic click bait morality. IPhones are affordable because of wealth inequality. Oil is cheap because of wealth inequality. Organic food is purchasable because of wealth inequality. Hipster clothes can be owned because of wealth inequality. And yet, none of these goods are targeted because those who use them are susceptible to pro-union shilling. Stop the painfully forced guilt complex from this out-of-touch middle class white perspective. I wish I could have easily sold my spare time for more money when I first moved here with P2P labor systems like Uber... but I had to wait for a central bank's liquidity push to eventually intice small business hiring, some union to not bump a new guy for someone's seniority, or some corporation wonk to figure out a new growth market. Oh, yes, I just felt so equal in that system of waiting for people "smarter" than me to justify needing me. People should have access to the means to sell their time and labor where ever and when ever they want. Period.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
uptown 12y ago
It's fine to believe that. It promotes an economy that essentially looks like this: "Change in median net worth 1983-2013" Upper income families $321k Middle income $2k Low -$2k Source: https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/545260970256252929 https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/545260970256252929
- sighsigh 12y ago
  Are you going to factor in China and India from the same time period?
  - dropit_sphere 12y ago
    I don't know why this keeps being brought up. Do China and India cheer when the economy picks up in the U.S., for reasons other than the increased demand they'll experience? Does GE include Microsoft's performance in its reports to shareholders? I mean, fewer people starving is always awesome. But it is not the question being asked.
- refurb 12y ago
  Considering that the time period of 1983-2013 catches the tail end of the worst housing crash in recent history kinda skews the numbers.
sp332 12y ago
I don't know how you missed the recurring outrage about the wages and conditions of iPhone workers. And the article isn't against your last point. In fact the article isn't even blaming Uber for the problems. It's just pointing out that Uber (and other services like it) only work where inequality is pervasive.
- sighsigh 12y ago
  Globalism works due to inequality. Nationalism works due to inequality. Tribalism works due to inequality. The dirty secret of civilization is that someone has to dig the graves. Why pretend it's an evil from your middle class morally righteous soap box instead of allowing people the means to participate as simply as possible?
  - sp332 12y ago
    Why don't I pretend it's an evil from the bottom of someone else's grave I just dug?
    - sighsigh 12y ago
      Because that would make you... a believer of an out-of-touch white middle class moral framework that has failed to predict anything.
      - samman 12y ago
        So, I'm kind of ambivalent about this thread so far, but it sounds like you have thought about this a bit. What sort of moral framework do you find preferable over the 'out-of-touch white middle class' one?
        sighsigh 12y ago
        A simple one that can be summarized as "Survival first. Then morality." Equality is a social construct. It don't actually exist in the universe at any scope whatsoever. The quantum, molecular, biological, ecological, sociological, planetary, and galactic scopes are in a permanent state of disequilibrium as per the second law of thermodynamics. Drawing a border within that entropic flow and defining it as a closed system works... until an unexplored dependency fails. That process of constantly drawing lines has been civilization's primary activity: "These are the valid social roles/scientific possibilities/moral ranges/emotional perceptions and here's how people fit into them... and here's how to punish those who do not!" Those who define these symbols and convince others to believe in them bestows power to the author... ergo, the phrase AUTHORitarian. Compound this activity over thousands of years with millions of authors, and you don't end up with one agreed upon metric of how to categorize moral structures... what you actually have is an ecosystem of symbol authors vying for larger and larger fan clubs, mostly through conversion, interrogation, humiliation, aggression, and other manifestations of emotional extortion. However, even within that activity, an implied metric of categorization does exist. It's just unspoken: All moral systems share the exact same threshold for synthesis. Meaning, If moral system X exists as a response to, and in opposition of Y, then it's threshold is at Y and Y-like things. The moral system will only synthesize with similar symbols. Take the moral system of humanism, which is the preference of the material concerns of humanity over symbols and spirituality. Here is a system that exists to defy symbols themselves as if they are proudly above symbols, yet, even this system generates and relies upon symbols. (Potential value of human contribution is absolutely measured in the symbolism of socioemotional hand-waving and/or GDP projection) By establishing that all moral systems are just a frameworks of symbols seeking similar symbols and avoid dissimilar symbols, all you are actually explaining is the public interfaces of competing systems. Christians and their social justice derivatives use guilt, Islam and ancestor worship uses tribal identity, capitalists use greed and ambition... they are just different interfaces for moral systems that scoop up people who are already culturally, emotionally, and/or neurologically predisposed to find certain interfaces of morality easier to use than others. (Think of operating system preference with low-information consumers) And since we are now talking about human participation, we are now actually talking about power, which is what these symbol systems are all about: material domination. Therefore, when discussing any moral systems and their efficacy, we can simplify the question to be "Which symbol system gathers the most amount of stupid people to do the author's bidding?" And I find that question to be totally pointless because no symbol system actually promises survival within the material domain... only domination of it on behalf of the author and associated scribes. Not even environmentalism is exempt because it fixates on ecoconservation, which means nothing in the face of light-speed blackholes ramming into your planet. Therefore, until someone solves the question of survival in a meaningful way, all moral systems are just masturbatory political revenge fantasies, which discredits all of them for all time. I see no problem with making it easier for people to survive since they exist on a planet consumed with symbol conflict and their petulant authors, floating about in a universe that is ultimately ambivalent about their presence to begin with. If I had any spiritual authority, I would expend all of it with a simple message, "You and your ancestors are forgiven. Just try better this time."
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

uptown 12y ago

It's fine to believe that. It promotes an economy that essentially looks like this: "Change in median net worth 1983-2013" Upper income families $321k Middle income $2k Low -$2k Source: https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/545260970256252929 https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/545260970256252929

sighsigh 12y ago
Are you going to factor in China and India from the same time period?
- dropit_sphere 12y ago
  I don't know why this keeps being brought up. Do China and India cheer when the economy picks up in the U.S., for reasons other than the increased demand they'll experience? Does GE include Microsoft's performance in its reports to shareholders? I mean, fewer people starving is always awesome. But it is not the question being asked.
refurb 12y ago
Considering that the time period of 1983-2013 catches the tail end of the worst housing crash in recent history kinda skews the numbers.

sp332 12y ago

I don't know how you missed the recurring outrage about the wages and conditions of iPhone workers. And the article isn't against your last point. In fact the article isn't even blaming Uber for the problems. It's just pointing out that Uber (and other services like it) only work where inequality is pervasive.

sighsigh 12y ago
Globalism works due to inequality. Nationalism works due to inequality. Tribalism works due to inequality. The dirty secret of civilization is that someone has to dig the graves. Why pretend it's an evil from your middle class morally righteous soap box instead of allowing people the means to participate as simply as possible?
- sp332 12y ago
  Why don't I pretend it's an evil from the bottom of someone else's grave I just dug?
  - sighsigh 12y ago
    Because that would make you... a believer of an out-of-touch white middle class moral framework that has failed to predict anything.
    - samman 12y ago
      So, I'm kind of ambivalent about this thread so far, but it sounds like you have thought about this a bit. What sort of moral framework do you find preferable over the 'out-of-touch white middle class' one?
      - sighsigh 12y ago
        A simple one that can be summarized as "Survival first. Then morality." Equality is a social construct. It don't actually exist in the universe at any scope whatsoever. The quantum, molecular, biological, ecological, sociological, planetary, and galactic scopes are in a permanent state of disequilibrium as per the second law of thermodynamics. Drawing a border within that entropic flow and defining it as a closed system works... until an unexplored dependency fails. That process of constantly drawing lines has been civilization's primary activity: "These are the valid social roles/scientific possibilities/moral ranges/emotional perceptions and here's how people fit into them... and here's how to punish those who do not!" Those who define these symbols and convince others to believe in them bestows power to the author... ergo, the phrase AUTHORitarian. Compound this activity over thousands of years with millions of authors, and you don't end up with one agreed upon metric of how to categorize moral structures... what you actually have is an ecosystem of symbol authors vying for larger and larger fan clubs, mostly through conversion, interrogation, humiliation, aggression, and other manifestations of emotional extortion. However, even within that activity, an implied metric of categorization does exist. It's just unspoken: All moral systems share the exact same threshold for synthesis. Meaning, If moral system X exists as a response to, and in opposition of Y, then it's threshold is at Y and Y-like things. The moral system will only synthesize with similar symbols. Take the moral system of humanism, which is the preference of the material concerns of humanity over symbols and spirituality. Here is a system that exists to defy symbols themselves as if they are proudly above symbols, yet, even this system generates and relies upon symbols. (Potential value of human contribution is absolutely measured in the symbolism of socioemotional hand-waving and/or GDP projection) By establishing that all moral systems are just a frameworks of symbols seeking similar symbols and avoid dissimilar symbols, all you are actually explaining is the public interfaces of competing systems. Christians and their social justice derivatives use guilt, Islam and ancestor worship uses tribal identity, capitalists use greed and ambition... they are just different interfaces for moral systems that scoop up people who are already culturally, emotionally, and/or neurologically predisposed to find certain interfaces of morality easier to use than others. (Think of operating system preference with low-information consumers) And since we are now talking about human participation, we are now actually talking about power, which is what these symbol systems are all about: material domination. Therefore, when discussing any moral systems and their efficacy, we can simplify the question to be "Which symbol system gathers the most amount of stupid people to do the author's bidding?" And I find that question to be totally pointless because no symbol system actually promises survival within the material domain... only domination of it on behalf of the author and associated scribes. Not even environmentalism is exempt because it fixates on ecoconservation, which means nothing in the face of light-speed blackholes ramming into your planet. Therefore, until someone solves the question of survival in a meaningful way, all moral systems are just masturbatory political revenge fantasies, which discredits all of them for all time. I see no problem with making it easier for people to survive since they exist on a planet consumed with symbol conflict and their petulant authors, floating about in a universe that is ultimately ambivalent about their presence to begin with. If I had any spiritual authority, I would expend all of it with a simple message, "You and your ancestors are forgiven. Just try better this time."

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]