the_grungydan t1_izclpla wrote

I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels that way. I straight up just posted under the (current as of writing) top post that it sounded like a Jordan Petersen level bad take by an incel with a dictionary. These comments reek of offended "men" desperate to be right.


the_grungydan t1_iye6pg1 wrote

Not that the Dems are fighting that hard for us, either.

And this isn't whataboutism, before some dingus that saw that word somewhere once comes along, nor am I trying to be the enlightened centrist here. It's just a fact.

Neither party gives the slightest shit about anything other than power and making money.


the_grungydan t1_iv6cps0 wrote

Hint: getting a new flagship smartphone that requires some actually fairly scarce material isn't a human need.

Yes, I'm discussing something that would have to be done hand in hand with reworking what we consider valuable or necessary to some degree.

But runaway crony capitalism and the TV/radio/internet screaming that you "need" the latest and greatest Thing are poisons that will continue to keep humanity from moving beyond primitive "competition" and into a more sustainable cooperative.

It's about a realignment of values, and the value we assign to things. But the idea that "competition" in the modern world is some natural state that isn't the direct result of propaganda and manipulation is ridiculous.


the_grungydan t1_iv5wmnq wrote

The obvious counter to that argument is that we compete because we perceive resources as scarce, and therefore something over which to compete. As we grow closer to (and in some ways have already far surpassed) the vagaries of actual scarcity, we must be willing to make conscious change to accept that reality.

Put another way, we only have to compete today because of massive inequality and the enforcement of a scarcity mentality by power structures that benefit from the status quo.

Anyone telling you otherwise is profiting from how things are.


the_grungydan t1_itoblwm wrote

My most immediate issue is with

> ... Jean-Paul Sartre sees freedom as something humans are born into, and is the effect of one’s ability to choose. With this description of freedom, we are entirely responsible for our situation and the meaning that we give it. >

Satre proposes, according to this writing, that we are born into a vacuum lacking any external influences. Part of where Camus is so prescient on this issue IMO is that he accounts for externalities very directly, speaking on the very real situations that humans have created for ourselves with regard to drudgery and pointlessness, whereas (at least from this article) Sartre pretends that they don't exist. On the other hand, Camus directly speaks to the absurdity of the modern life.

> We are born into a world of choices such that we have sole control over what we choose.

In a word: poppycock.


the_grungydan t1_iru4tqi wrote

Solid points, for sure. Like I said, I'm sure way more educated-on-the-matter people than me clearly work on this. Just seems like a problem begging for a better solution than "guess it'll just get covered indust and die." And I'm certain they're working on it

Don't mistake idle conversation on an interesting subject for a formal debate. You'll enjoy life more. :)


the_grungydan t1_irrj2m1 wrote

I came here to ask the same thing. I'm clearly not any kind of expert on the topic, but it sure seems like you could equip a small blower and run a tube out to the end of it's arm. I know that space and weight are everything with regards to launch and so forth, but it almost seems like they're engineered to fail.

Edit: heck, reduce the complexity required by adding a blower and just give the good good spacey boi a feather duster.