It’s part of a shifting norm and shifting norms are always controversial. Especially norms that involve opening up bodily autonomy, dignity, or respect to previously excluded groups.

Boys becoming Men, Men becoming Bears

This is not a right wing resource, but if you’re interested in learning about the arguments and historical evolution of ideas that underpin economic liberalism/neoliberalism, I highly recommend Geoff Mann’s Disassembly required : a field guide to actually existing capitalism. It’s concise, relatively short, and treats the ‘other’ side like rational actors (which is important for understanding, I think).

Ofc this would only help understand people who are quite well informed.

https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781849351270

I guess I’m worried primarily about internal enemies too, but I don’t think we’d agree on which entities are the problem for some reason…

Imagine being the warehouse employee who opened the package

i are, I generally have to make about the corrections per message in order for it to even be legible

(left it in all its glory for you guys)

Me too, eyelash extensions that rival the city’s stadium in importance.

Wtf, breaches aside why would a health care company be working with advert companies?

Active support of something totally morally unacceptable seems more morally culpable than refusing to participate. I don’t think most people are consequentialists—the how matters.

To me if a certain method of organizing fails to give people power over their own needs without infringing on the needs of others than it should be avoided. Privatization of -everything-, which is core to ancap theory, is itself an aggression. The enclosure movement in the UK is a good example. The ‘best’ way for people to organize would incentivize people to be good towards each other and good stewards of the planet. It would not allow one person to gain power over anyone else’s right to exist. You should be highly skeptical of a movement whose theorists support slavery, free market organ sales, etc. which are antithetical to freedom of the individual (at least one person in the relationship is getting the shitty end of the deal).

If any of this recognizably lasts 1000 years I’ll have a better opinion of it, ancient egypt is still smirking at us

Hundreds of years of infighting

I haven’t played around with them, are the new models able to actually reason rather than just predictive text on steroids?

I remember that! I also remember it passing pretty quickly, don’t think it was effective. And I disagree with all of the nay sayers on the usefulness of those subs. Since that time I’ve noticed a lot more people willing to speak about work as a simple contractual arrangement. Not too long ago you would be called lazy and lacking in team spirit etc. for holding boundaries at work. I’ve had more co-workers express the ‘work to live not live to work’ mentality.

Maybe you guys didn’t grow up around as many people who put their entire human energy into their jobs as I did, but in some places there has been a clear shift in how people are thinking about work. Boomers used to let ther vacation expire guys. I am not seeing that in the workplace anymore. Don’t forget the ‘lying flat’ movement that was/is concurrent and frequently discussed in those subs as well. I truly think the antiwork sub helped spark a conversation in the public zeitgeist and helped spur a shift in thought.

Would have been cool for them to host their own instance with just the one account

Salt and pepper fight!

Salt and pepper fight!

That’s a lot of nozzles

The twitter format makes it feel like everyone is speaking from a soap box at all times, and people aren’t their best selves from a soap box.

Oh no, how will people know if their opinions are right or wrong without our top most social ethicists?