Imagine I was running a non-profit that teaches middle and high school kids about the human body and the first thing I have them do is to look up their legislator and ask them to pass anti-abortion legislation.
In both situations, kids are being used to promote a political agenda.
It's no different than the parents who bring their kids to protests and make signs for them to hold. Except parents likely explain why they're bringing their kid to a protest. This guy just straight up uses them for his own political goals before even explaining why they're doing it.
the reason we have weekends and no child labor is because workers died for it.
the state, the capitalists desire control, obedience and extraction. worker well-being is a low priority. workers advocating for better pay, safe working conditions, etc were routinely killed.
why is it laughable to say that there is a need to resist the injustice and push for better working conditions and rights for all?
the stuff that elites do to people is also a violence, for example denying the lifesaving healthcare.
it is just for some reason being tolerant of abuse and exploitation is normalized, people are kept on minimum wage that hasnt changed for many decades.
elites get to enjoy the benefits of rich society only because the rest of the people tolerate it, but it doesn't have to be case
there is a level of extractiveness that optimizes for overall wealth and prosperity.
and overly extractive systems are unstable over the long term.
are you confident that the current level of extraction is optimal, or sustainable?
if a large part of society decides that it's not optimal or sustainable, where would you stand? prevent change? or seek equitable and stable redistribution?
there are so many examples of the inherent unwillingness for the beneficiaries of extractive systems to resist change: see the laws imposed against serfs following the black death, or the shooting and violent suppression of striking union workers.
that cycle is beginning again: MAGA, widespread rioting in France, Italy and other places.
There is economic and political injustice. Systemic extraction is passing a stable equilibrium.
relax the grip on power and resources, or spend the blood and treasure it will cost to maintain it.
but don't bullshit anyone with this 'life has an inherent cost': that's trivially obvious to everyone.
we are well past the point of collectively paying that cost. it's just not fairly or reasonably distributed.
> are you confident that the current level of extraction is optimal, or sustainable?
No, I just don’t think a class war is the answer. Equitable and stable resource distribution doesn’t necessitate retribution towards the current ruling class. An imperfect system beats no system at all.
thats what a ruling class representative would say. But historically elite rotation and elite replacement happened routinely, often violently, because they extracted too much and lost touch with reality
Terrible. Which is exactly why people are trying to feed forward the message in discussion forums, before it actually turns violent. The problem is that the elites still aren't listening - rather they keep doubling down, as they've been quite successful at redirecting the energy to serve their own ends (eg the maggot movement for the latest incarnation, which is plainly obvious to everybody who isn't part of the maggot movement). But eventually that trick is going to fail, and the longer it has gone on, the harder the fall will be.
rich people are innocent, my issue is with elites in the higher echelons of power (not necessarily wealth) who are corrupt and do not deserve the place they are in.
>There haven't been any good options for president in a long time.
that does not justify voting for the worst candidate for this office in as many decades.
this argument immediately pops up. and it's easily refuted: just don't vote for the guy convicted of felonies and with a long history of boorish behavior and grift. it's really not that hard.
i don't want Americans immigrating in large quantities to New Zealand, because they have cultural values that change the nature of the society, in ways that i don't want it to change.
And i don't consider American a 'race', but more an agglomeration pf people with some general preferences, shared experience and even material characteristics ($$$) that will have negative impacts.
Now, if i could filter, as a voter, to 'allow in Americans that share my values and that would minimize change on axes that matter to me', i would accept immigration of Americans.
but, as a voter, i cannot do that. So instead i vote to keep immigration restrictive. that does not mean I consider Americans inferior, not that i hold that they are meaningfully different from me in any way except culture.
it's not racism. but instead a generalization that we are forced to apply as individuals.
> [Americans] have cultural values that change the nature of the society
I can almost guarantee you are wrong about this, especially about Americans who would ever emigrate to New Zealand. You are voting based on xenophobia. The only reason it's not racist is because "American" is not generally considered a race. But it's xenophobic, nationalistic, and based on deep-rooted stubborn ignorance.
So your view is that there's no way to recover, and there's no viable alternative. In other words, that "the rot" has consumed the body politic and there's nothing to be done about it. To me this seems like a rationalization of apathy and inaction, but if it's the conclusion you've really come to, I encourage you to disengage from the political process as would seem to be the logical course of action implied by the claim, though this is partially because frankly the involvement of people with such beliefs in said process likely can only run counter to my interests
I'm reading "why nations fail" and it's fascinating to learn how deliberately Apartheid South Africa was engineered to impoverish black farmers to improve profitability for whites.
Feels like a very similar policy being pursued here.
are you american protestant perchance? your perspective is shaped by your cultural milieu and is not a firm objective fact.
i get much more satisfaction out of preparing a meal or reading a good book than work. i like to choose what i work on, rather than be told by the prevailing wage rate what work i should do.
caring for a child is one of the most valuable and rewarding activities, but it is not rewarded monetarily. that doesn't make it less valuable or worthwhile.
Look I essentially agree with you, but I also recognize all three as “work”. As technology floods society people do less of all three even before AI but household robotics will definitely come after cooking and childcare in an unprecedented way. Reading is perhaps a slight stretch to define as work as you and I both read for pleasure but given how sharply reading rates have dropped in the face of short form video (which to me is not work to consume), it is also clearly under threat. Many humans seem to choose shallow convenience over the expenditure of any effort for deeper rewards. Teaching children that working at something to master it is both intrinsically worthwhile and deeply rewarding is one of the main jobs of parenting as I’m sure you’ll agree. Regardless, not everyone would be contented by having only a few useful avenues left, not everyone finds satisfaction in cooking, reading or child care. In fact I’d argue that most people do not find deep satisfaction in any of these three. Nor in the handful of others that often pop up, music, art, dance, etc. Humans are varied and having 30% feel rootless and unfulfilled traditionally leads to political extremism and war.
reply