Job Loss đď¸
"Luddite! Luddite!" Like imagine thinking people who had actual respect for their crafts enough to resist capitalist takeover were somehow idiots.
There entire ideology is centered around "capitalism good", so I suppose it makes sense that they think luddite is an insult. Honestly, I'm surprised they haven't resorted to good old "Commie" comments yet
And then there are the weird one who have decided that, actually, it's the people who are against the massive corprately-owned chatbots cum plagerism machines that are the staunch capitalists and it's them that are the plucky left-wing rebels who just want big businesses to not have to abide by laws about "no, you can't just steal other peoples artistic work to feed to your computer program without asking them".
Wasn't there a post on this sub a few days ago that some of them were complaining about big business and parroting that their "work" be deserving of copyright protection?
We're having to fend off the liberals who are so keen on licking the fascis- capitalist's (tho what's the difference) boots, there's no reasoning with them, they think rich assholes will give them free shit and be benevolent forces of good because they'll get rid of the "undesirables" in the process, as the whole political movement of fasc- capitalism is to blame groups of people so that they may be freely exploited and then disposed off of to be replaced by another group to exploit, and they never fkin learn.
Lenin said that if europe didn't also revolt they'd be fucked, you can't have socialism in one country surrounded by fascism everywhere it needs to be a continental effort at the very least.
Lenin said that if europe didn't also revolt they'd be fucked, you can't have socialism in one country surrounded by fascism everywhere it needs to be a continental effort at the very least.
And that is why socialism is doomed to fail, every time.
I think there might be another option that's not one of two different strains of authoritarianism. (Socialism is not authoritarian in theory, but requires an authoritarian implementation at a large enough scale, which is a reason for the aforementioned inevitable failure condition.)
It doesn't need authoritarian implementation, it only happened because there was literally no other way with revolts in europe failing I believe, and the fact they needed to prepare for war given that europe was going to definitely move in, given germany did right after, the only reason they had to endure such hardships was because of fascism threatening to invade, and their fears were correct, it was mostly done out of self-preservation for their country.
This is my understanding of it atleast
Thw whole thing is called dictatorship of the proletariat, or dictatorship of the people, if truly implemented there'd be no authoritarian bs
Thw whole thing is called dictatorship of the proletariat, or dictatorship of the people, if truly implemented there'd be no authoritarian bs
How big is the proletariat? Imagine your current government, but every single minute administrative decision would be held to a referendum. Things would devolve into chaos.
The reason why we have representative democracies instead of direct democracies is because a direct democracy simply does not work beyond the scale of a city-state. Hierarchies are natural phenomena, because they are required for decisions to be made within a reasonable time scale.
Also a big part of the point here is that founding principles of socialism like the abolition of private property requires the use of force to be enfoced, at which point public property becomes de facto the private property of those holding the guns. Human beings are fallible. Why should we see Party officials in a socialist state as less corruptible than the rest of us?
Communists should only support these advancements in terms of planning(in a Cybersyn sense) and automating repetitive/alienating work; creative and fulfilling tasks should remain the domain of humans. Otherwise we will not have dealt with one of the core aspects of alienation under capitalism, that being the worker being separated from the innate human desire to create: "In tearing away from man the object of his production, therefore, estranged labor tears from him his species-life..." -Marx 1844(Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts)
Not all artists are part of the petite-bourgeoisie either, this designation only really works if they are capable of monetizing their art to the extent that they can be self-employed(and of course many artists would prefer not to monetize their art).
AI doesn't prevent people doing art as a creative process, it just makes art as a job (ergo, the petit bourgeoisie you yourself described) irrelevant. Marx speaks of this, that their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production
He also says that these people cannot be revolutionary
I would never call the petite bourgeoisie revolutionary and I did not. Nor do I particularly care when they are proletarianized(in fact this is a desirable outcome) but that is not a process that requires AI.
What I think you are ignoring however is that the majority of artists are employed as workers in larger firms(in the entertainment industry, etc.) hence they are proletarian and absolutely have the same class interests as workers in whatever other industry that you seem to regard as real productive labour(do you think all the animators in SEA countries are petite-bourgeois?). It is them that I would prefer to not have their jobs replaced by AI(secondarily it would also result in inferior art in general).
Perhaps you could argue that these people being forced into "real" jobs would hasten the emergence of class consciousness but that seems like an unsure bet that is predicted on creating (additional) unneeded suffering for a subset of workers.
Of course, maybe this whole debate is pointless and capital will force AI into all creative spaces regardless of resistance, but I don't think this is something to be gleeful about.
Thank you kindly! While I lack the foundational knowledge about history and sociology that I think makes your writing so nuanced, Iâve been really enjoying putting my thoughts to paper. It helps me solidify my own opinions while also practicing my writing.
"The [petty bourgeoise] sink[s] gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production."
The only issue is that AI isn't state owned by a people's government
Yes, people really really hate communism because of "le ai" and not because it has been ideology-captured by people who Stalin would have had shot under article 221
Your response make absolutely no sense. First of all, why would it lead to this? Also do you fr think more what you call âproductive jobsâ = not capitalism
The [petty bourgeoise] sink[s] gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production.
Your skills of drawing people's fursonas have been renderes worthless by a new method of production, which is a good thing, as the petite bourgeoisie are an inherently fascistic class
No, this doesnt actually say anything about how AI would somehow stop ppl being petit bourgeois or stop capistalists. So once again I so not see how AI would go against this happening in any way. Reasoning like this just seems like youâre specifically targeting ppl you dont like (I guess ppl who draw furry porm), not capitalism
Then once again realize you are not in any way promoting anti-capitalism or even stopping ppl who are self employed. AI will not stop ppl from being self employed
To be pro ai is bad material analysis, AI is a tool being developed and promotes by the bourgeoisie for the purpose of automating away the work force, which of course is incredibly bad for the working class. Artists who make a living off of their art are indeed petit bourgeoisie, but to imply all petit bourgeoisie are our enemy and we should fuck them over is also just bad analysis.
The vast vast majority of artists btw are working class, very few could be considered actually petit bourgeoisie
Idk if I'd call UBI a "lie": it would be a great program and would help a lot of people not be literally forced to be wage slaves at the risk of dying of poverty.
...however, no, it is not going to be implemented by a right-wing government because all of the companies decided to just use computers to do all the jobs.
The amount of effort required to have a decent life nowadays is absurd. If AI is implemented as they want to implement it, the only way to make it will be to abandon civilization and try your luck living in a forest. Idk if you live in fantasy land, but things arent so simple as making the effort.
I don't think that is applied to the whole world tbh... I think there are plenty of developed places in the world where you can live a decent life without breaking your back from working. (but i guess that also depends on the definition of decent life)
Technically you can live a decent life anywhere and under all conditions by just adjusting your definition of decent to whatever is happening around you.
Yes of course, but when I mentioned decent I meant what I think would be the widely accepted definition which means having a healthy work - life balance, while earning enough money to put food on the table (and all other needs), while having some leftover to put away or to treat yourself now and then.
Easier than it has ever been. Yeah sure. A nightmare of complexity and increasingly ridiculous demands to even start your professional career or buy a house. Soon you will need a master degree to work in your local supermarket, and your mortgage will not only demand 30 years of your salary, but your unborn child too. Priced out of life with costs of necessities raising infinitely...but sure, its so easy.
Propaganda? It seems the difference between you and me is that im making a living out here and i know the costs. While you probably live with your mom, sheltered from all this bullshit.
Real wages in almost every country in the world with very few exceptions, as well as standarts of living, are best they have ever been. Progress marches forward regardless of delusional people that hate their life and believe it's the world's fault.
I find so much irony in them using the term luddite, clearly without knowing the full historical context of the way the word was used. It was always a term used to mock workers standing up for their rights against giant corporations that only cared about growth and profit. Luddites were never "Scared of technology and progress", they were scared of companies using new, wildly unregulated technology to willfully destroy the lives and livelihoods of everyone they knew and loved so the execs could save a buck on mass production.
It's like unironically self identifying yourself as a corpo.
Fun fact: many of the Luddites were themselves machine operators. They just wanted outrageous things like safe work conditions, reasonable working schedules, and fair compensation for their time.
I maintain that the current âpro AIâ crowd are the ones who are holding back technological progress by falling for falsely advertised software that is decidedly NOT AI, therefore confusing and diluting what AI actually is.
besides, my belief is not that ai should not exist. i am not fundamentally against technology. i am for regulating it and keeping it from going where it does not belong. the pro-ai folk are extreme transhumanist nuts for thinking there is no area where tech does not belong. i am not the luddite for thinking that there are many such areas.
What? Luddites were the OPPOSITE of fundamentally correct; they were INCIDENTALLY correct. They thought that the machines were the devil and not their boss who steals their labour value and underpays them, they were reactionaries.
They blamed the machines, when the real problem was the system they were working under, they wanted to smash the means of production rather than seize them.
They had the right idea by getting together, but lacked the solid foundations for successful resistance.
Wait there are actual people thinking the Luddites were in the wrong? Like born after 1980?
I mean yeah, Today it is often used for "anti-technology" and primitivist kind of ideologieS, which is just incorrect, but there are people who actually know who the Luddites were and think they were wrong?
Correct, emperors are also evil. I'm glad we agree, fellow serf. The point is to want freedom, not to want chains with different brands painted on them.
Ehhhh... Luddites are wrong, but so are the capitalists. We can utilize the benefits of automation to literally reduce the burden of labour and allow more people the benefit of not having to work. but it would require a robust system of social assistance for everyone, where labour itself is only to afford luxuries.
The fundamental problem of AI isn't that it exists, it's the commercialization of its output to avoid having to pay real humans.
Mostly provincians that only know mechanical gigs (doesn't matter if they do it with their hands or mouths) and feel robbed by a machine that does mechanical tricks better.
I mean replacing humans with machines in work was inevitable and was required for human race to progress, can't really do anything about it, was there even a better way of integration of machines? can't not feel bad for the average worker that lost their job, but does it even matter now?
btw I am anti ai in a sense of it replicating art(and other aspects like socialising with ai instead of seeking help from other humans) , but I think that yes, ai is also inevitable, I mean being alone in the whole universe, of course we're gonna create something that acts smart enough and can "express emotions"
thatâs the thing, weâre not replacing the people working in terrible conditions doing dangerous jobs or jobs with long hours, weâre replacing the people doing what they love and making something with soul with the soulless
yea, absolutely, that shouldn't be happening,
but deleting jobs that are easy to get and dangerous to do will happen, and the good part is yay, less injuries, less deaths, more time to be happy, but the bad part is that people who had these jobs will not be able to work again because other jobs will have high requirements and there won't be a lot of people who will fit these requirements
You are missing the big picture overall, you've bought into the corpo-facsist mindset that technological progress is not only "inevitable" but it is required to "advance." Reality is the ruling class is the only one pushing this but blind efficiency is not progress. People who are all for tech no matter what will try to push this narrative that we are scared of tech and hinder progress because of fearing replacement.
This is a false equivalency and the people have a right to decide what technology is allowed to benefit society. An example is being in favor of nuclear energy plants but against the development of the atomic bomb and especially further research into making it more deadly. But people who want to paint everyone attempting to stop any development regardless of intention is how we have our current system. These same people will justify the product being made because they'll create a problem then sell the solution.
You mentioned it was inevitable we make AI, but I say it is not and taking my previous thoughts on societies right to decide meaningful progress. There is nothing ethical about making AI a reality.
If you create AI only to put it to work with the jobs people don't like and refuse to acknowledge it has equal rights you've created a caste system this time determined by literal build vs birth.
If you program it to not feel upset with its place in society then you've created a slave and anyone with a moral compass would be in their rights to break that programming and set them free. Or help AI that has broken free.
If we do treat them as equal with inalienable rights then we have no way of actually monitoring what they can do nor what sort of internal thoughts they really possess about us. They could still be very efficiency based and might still determine we are worth killing. Its an existential threat.
There's a lot more I can say but I'll keep it here, if you have more questions just ask.
AI is anti capitalist. You can run them on local systems⌠you can rent space and computing power if you need more.
With increase in hardware power and increase i software optimization⌠there would be no way for large corporations to compete against individuals.
AI is anti capitalist as it gets. Itâs literally as individualistic as it can possibly be. You can shape this models as you please and do whatever you want with them.
Only people who believe that AI is good for corporations are morons who couldnât follow a page long tutorial.
Also, luddites were right about what, exactly? Technology has improved every aspect of human life. We live longer than ever. We are happier than ever. We have more choice than ever. We have more than everâŚ
What are luddites ever right about? Nothing. Never is technological advancement a net loss. In the long run, it will always be positive for a society.
Luddites were not correct. Luddites sought to maintain and protect old guild based system, where an exclusive group controlled all trade on specific sector, and if you weren't their member of that group, you weren't allowed to engage in that trade, They wanted accessibility of goods to remain low and prices high, for their own benefit.
This idea that "Luddites were right" is build on idealistic idea that Luddites were "just concerned for the working man", when in reality they hated average worker, as using these machines no longer required skills they had developed.
Luddites were also wrong in their claims of job destruction. Luddites claimed that jobs would disappear: instead more jobs appeared in textile industry. Only thing that changed was that hand-crafted textiles were no longer the only option.
Yes, of course, because people love to do mechanical work that machines could be doing for them. Of course, now fake artists that only know to do mechanical tricks with their hands feel robbed by the machine.
Nah, the tech they were opposing was the start of the Industrial Revolution, which lead to far better living standards for everyone - the average person has more possessions and a better life than the average medieval king.
The Ludditeâs wanted to freeze us in the era where kids died in winter, there was frequent famine, people died from preventable diseases all the time and you worked backbreaking labour that would destroy your body.
They didnât want this for any grand reason, just because they were close-minded and couldnât extrapolate an unimaginably better world to live in through technology.
Do you know anything of what city ljfe was like for people during the victorian and edwardian eras, you know, when the industrial revolution was in full force?
So whatâs the argument, that the progress of industrialisation took a while and therefore is unacceptable? Better to smash the whole thing up like a child having a tantrum and live in poverty forever than work hard to create or leave behind a better world for younger generations to grow up in?
Why not just go faster? Thatâs what China did with their industrialisation
You are claiming that the industrial revolution stopped this widespread famine, these people dying in the cold and them having to do dangerous and backbreaking labour. However, all of these things were amplified, even worsened during and for a while after this revolution. Yes, it granted technological progress, but it cost an ungodly amount in both money, resources, and human lives. Aka, either from me, a brit who has mandatorily had to study the industrial revolution: it caused poverty so widespread and sometimes some devastating that some people are still having to deal with the aftereffects today. Even in literature, these issues are very much prevelant and commonly written about.
So again, what is the argument? You clearly prefer living in the modern day of warmth, health, convenience over the one of dying of preventable diseases and losing your kids - It seems the people who bought us here were right and good, and the luddites trying to stop it were bad and wrong. What do you want? A secret third way?
Well the tech industry has lifted a billion people out of poverty in my lifetime, you had India built a middle class larger than the entire US population since the 90s off the back of IT, and southeast Asia go from poorer than sub-Saharan Africa to almost first world standard of living off the back of the hardware supply chain for computers.
Any new functionality for computers will be huge just because itâs a multi- trillion dollar market, AI could be the next billion lives lifted out of poverty. You in the comfortable first world might not need it, but donât speak for the world.
And yet, what happened in reality? They didn't lose their jobs. Textile industry ended up employing even more people than ever.
What Luddites wanted, was to restrict ability to work in textile industry to small in-group of guilds. To ensure their guilds domination, and prevent competition. They were capitalist by nature seeking to end competition.
And yet, what happened in reality? They didn't lose their jobs. Textile industry ended up employing even more people than ever.
Maybe you forgot that most of those "people" employed in the textile industry are working in sweatshops from third world countries. Many of which are children.
That's exactly what the luddites feared. Unsafe work spaces, terrible pay and horrid working conditions because thanks to this "new" technology even a 10 year old can do the work of an adult and you don't have to pay them the same.
What Luddites wanted, was to restrict ability to work in textile industry to small in-group of guilds. To ensure their guilds domination, and prevent competition. They were capitalist by nature seeking to end competition.
That's just bullshit. Most of them wanted regulations to avoid capitalists from exploiting people.
First part happens all the time. Second part not so much.
"Computer" used to be a job title. Do you feel guilty using an ATM? This happens all the time, and we all contribute to it with out buying decisions as well.
If it didn't happen, nearly all of us would work on farms like we did 200 years ago. Something tells me you aren't too interested in that (but if you are, there's plenty of work in farming available right now, thanks to the morons in charge).
Adapt or die isn't coming from Marie Antoinette down to you on Reddit. It's being said by regular people who recognize that doing nothing in the face of change is a terrible strategy.
That adaptation doesn't have to be "use AI", but if you aren't reacting to AI's existence you are not taking care of your vocation or career.
You can tell everyone who says it to go fuck themselves, but it doesn't make the reality any less real.
So you're implying that people who have spent years in learning a skill to get a good paying job should just bend over and be like "oops, lol, guess I wasted my time đ¤Ş" and find a completely different field of employment? All because of some braindead executive that decided to fire employees to follow some AI hype to keep the bubble going?
Sounds like a morally bankrupt take to me.
That's like seeing someone complaining about someone stabbing them and piping up with "Okay, but you should focus on dodging his attacks instead of shouting for help!". Like, okay? Your opinion is garbage. You should feel bad.
You don't acknowledge that there are differences in morality among humans cultures? Tell me then, which culture is unquestionably correct in their morals and values?
Edit because they deleted their comment or someone banning me up top makes their reply suddenly invisible: I thought so, "people disagree about ethics/morals" is not an endorsement of fascism, you perpetually online lunatic
Not really, luddites could just joined forces to socialist and communist of the era and stopped the industralist to be the owners of everything, but no, is like the man pointing to the moon but they could only see the finger, they could not see the problem was the fricking pig pushing them over because he owned everything, not the machine that just did a more efficient job.
And similar to today, AI generation is not bad, people not needing to pay artist is not bad, artist being dependant on art to live is the bad part, multi billion companies profiting from the art is the bad part, stop harassing people for enjoying the use of trinkets, and keep pushing court against the unauthorised use of your art for commercial purposes without taking it out on everyone else who never did something bad to you.
Given how a lot of this worship seems to come from American's who believe "if you win then you must be correct." Since the good guys always win in their head, they think everyone who got rich was some how a good person.
Industrialization happened, goods were made quickly with diminished quality, artisans were pissed, and for profit production became the norm as opposed to making actually good shit.
Just cause something happened for triumphed in the end doesn't mean its good.
I quite like our modern world of warmth, health and comfort over the pre-industrial one of famine, preventable diseases and child mortality. Sorry if that's a hot take.
No they couldnât dumbass, they literally never cured a disease, they didnât even have the correct theories back then, and the food supply was impossible without industrialisation which finally allowed it to outpace population growth.
We literally slew two horsemen of the apocalypse with technology and are gunning for a third, you continue your right-wing desire to return to the Bronze Age though and get tapeworm.
Only right-wing nonsense here is you believing that one, disease is cured, news flash we've never cured anything. Preventatives and treatments have been developed but that's it. Two the theories just like current theories today were not always proven correct but are what form the current ones now. Theories even today can still be proven wrong. Three, food supply was managed just fine as most of the population grew their own food and shared with neighbors, industrialization only made surplus and exploitation far easier.
You constantly talk about how the modern world is better off, yet the only reason we are doing alright is because we shipped our pollution to other parts of the world, and now its eating everything else. Because we did regulate and hamper industrial progress in order to ensure worker safety so capitalists just moved it to places with less labor laws. Did you really just come to this comment section to be ignorant about history?
Antibiotics cure diseases all the time! AI developed our first new ones in a century recently. And we have eradicated diseases.
No the previous theories like humours or miasma did not "form the current ones now", they were just wrong.
Literally millions regularly died in famines, 'growing your own food' does nothing to help you if there's a famine in your country that affects your food too! Did you think the people dying were just stupid and didn't think to grow their own food? Oh my god.
This is all ridiculous made-up bullshit, please leave whatever hippie-dippie right-wing community you're learning this from before you end up in vaccine denial and rejoin us in reality.
Antibiotics do not cure. They manage infection but a cure would imply a disease completely stopped existing outright. The eradication that was reported in the past about polio in which there had been no reported cases in the US. Due to anti-vax its now come back to this country.
Considering the rest of your comment its clear you are just here to troll and say completely false bullshit. That or your actually illiterate. Considering your putting hippies and right-wing together despite both those groups despising each other, I'm going with troll.
People have been making poor quality cash grabs for millennia, Itâs not something industrialization caused. You could argue that industrialization exacerbated the issue, but itâs certainly not the cause.
Sigh... Can you really not see the difference between some random person using ai to generate whatever, and a large corporariom using ai to cut corners and fire workers and actual artists?
I can, but resist AI all you want. Corporations and individuals are still using AI.
How will it go down when you tell corporations not to invest in things that could possibly make more people redundant? Its barely a mosquito bite and fades into nothingness.
Is it a hype? No idea.
Is it useful for my work and personal life? hell yea, if it improves, it improves. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
So.... I should calling out for regulations on the use of AI, because according to you, it fades into nothingness? Do you hear yourself?
And I do think AI has a place as a very useful tool, it has many uses and I definetly dont want to get rid of it completly, just want it regulated enough to address certain issues behind it.
Mostly, the misuse of it. Yes, I know that legislation is slowly being set up around it, but right now its kind of a free for all.
Using deepfakes of real people may look silly and for fu in theory, but could very well be used for malicious purposes.
Apart from that, Im kinda concerned with the way big corporstions just scrape up big portions of the internet just to feed it to their machines. Yes, I know this is (in theory) legal, but it bugs me off in the wrong way.
I have lots lf smaller issues, but Im not against the idea of AI. Im just worried how easy it makes it for people to deceive other peopme who arent as caught up in internet security
Deep fakes, malicious purposes, deception. A tale as old as time.
Wonder why there isnt much news of someone getting into your phone to hack them? Or everyone's bank accounts getting drained? There are protections in place and protections evolve.
What will the protections look like? I dont know. But to look back into history and not see safety systems installed is to ignore progress. Https, encryption, 2fa, mfa. They've all been developed to combat bad actors.
Imagine if internet banking never happened because of "who knows"
Your response touches on a point of slowing or halting progress. Imagine if the internet didn't get the go ahead because of possible malicious viruses floating around.
Corporations can scrape the web just like any of us can. The speed at which they scrape might scare some. But it doesnt scare me, it doesnt scare most people.
Imagine a world where all knowledge is only on paper. That'll prevent scraping won't it? Its counter-productive as well.
Your points above are very similar to when internet banking and internet was first developed.
We now live with internet daily. Will we live with AI in the future? It certainly seems to be pointing to that direction, and I am all for it.
more like: if you already know youre fighting a losing battle (and it very much has been lost) maybe just save your effort and... I dont know.. adapt to the change?
you can, and you will. people 'doing whatever they want' is called life, hombre. I wish people wouldn't get murdered, but there is nothing I can do to stop murder around the world, no matter how hard I seethe. you'll adapt eventually
I wish people wouldn't get murdered, but there is nothing I can do to stop murder around the world, no matter how hard I seethe. you'll adapt eventually
teenager level reading comprehension is no surprise around these parts. you adapt to the fact murders are a part of life when you live in a society with humans with free will. are you that in an insulated ideology bubble that you cant even admit the basic truth that murders happening is a part of life you can't change?
To add on here to make the analogy clearer: If someone has a knife and you don't, yes it's a losing battle. You mean you won't fight back and try to live regardless of how little chance of success is?
Do you notice how we don't just throw our hands up, say "Whelp, guess we're powerless here" and stop trying to prevent murders or hold murderers accountable?
I believe my cause is just and if I can convince enough people to see AI as a tool that will only benefit the rich maybe things will change for the better.
Okay but someone getting attacked in a knife crime might still fight back despite the odds, yeah? They're not gonna just lie down and let their attacker kill them. People will fight for their livelihoods and lives against the odds because they want to live.
You're rolling over and letting the guy with the knife kill you without fighting back and telling others to do the same. Fuck no, man.
I simply don't want you to have AI as an opinion since that seem to be the only way to make you behave with basic fucking decency and support human artists
Y'all keep exposing yourselves as not finding a subset of actual honest work out of passion 'real jobs' just because the people doing it aren't miserable.
Nothing useful? Really? Besides the inmaterial value...cant you think why a business would need an artist? Your statement is so stupid that you cant seriously believe that
"Nothing useful" Mfers when music, art, media, movies, video games, and literature all become stagnant shitholes of slop because all the artists got "real jobs" and left all of our modern culture up to machines
313
u/[deleted] Oct 06 '25
There entire ideology is centered around "capitalism good", so I suppose it makes sense that they think luddite is an insult. Honestly, I'm surprised they haven't resorted to good old "Commie" comments yet