This doesn't sound like being baffled by it. It sounds like they are trying to shake the students and say: "fine boo, but you need do something about it." You can't just wallow and complain about it. I mean you can but it's a path to failure.
Wanting the benefits but not its downsides.
Nothing concrete they do will likely have any effect. But Schmidt can affect it, so influencing Schmidt is their best path. A poor path, but the best one.
[1] It remains to be seen if it will continue working okay, and there are troubling signs, but I'm optimistic
It's like people don't like hearing or speaking about the truth, so they retreat to false feel-good platitudes to make themselves feel better, when the cold harsh calculated nature of the universe continues its course without caring how you feel about it.
I think it might have to do with the HN surbase living in a bubble and having long lost the plot, or after the Tramp elections, they now actively deny what "average people" now represents so they downvote arguments like yours out of emotional response without any counter-argument because they have none. Being in denial helps nobody.
Well they are doing something about it, just not the way the speakers had in mind.
Luigi Mangione: …
CEOs: “Not like that…
I’m not suggesting that it’s a good response. I’m suggesting that this interpretation of what CEOs are saying is wrong.
This country was founded on political violence. When the political violence works, we tend to stop considering it political violence.
And I think you have that backwards. The nonviolence movements of the mid to late 20th century are the exception more than the rule when it comes to achieving change.
Cursory knowledge of history also shows that, when it comes to violence, logic does not matter. People are scared for their livelihoods. If the rich and powerful keep shouting to the word that they are going to destroy your way of life, there will be violence. It doesn't matter how futile or counterproductive it is.
Maybe cursory knowledge isn't enough, actually. The Civil Rights Act was ultimately only passed because of political violence. As another commenter said, the literal founding of the country was based on political violence.
Violence by the police against peaceful protestors is what turned public opinion. Violence by political activists did not lead to the Civil Rights Act. You have it backwards.
The peaceful protestors were also only one side of the coin. Their impact relied on being an alternative to the other side, which was not peaceful.
It think you're the one who has a cursory understanding here.
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”
Best case scenario is a new set of elites that end up doing the same shit as the last group, see Russia from 1918 to the present for an example.
Russia is not a good example either, their society has always been a clusterfuck, and probably always will be as long as there are people willing to throw other people put of windows so someone can stay ahead or in power.
What? Napoleon marched them off to war "spending 30,000 lives per month". They didn't get a proper Republic until 1870 and turned into miserable colonial overlords. Moreover the 3rd Republic;s foreign policy helped cause WWI.
Many people have made comments that are similar in nature, the line from that song is the pithiest example I could think of to express the idea that replacing terrible leaders usually leads to more terrible leaders.
Spending decades fighting wars across Europe under Napoleon was good? I wonder how the troops that invaded Russia feel about the French Revolution lol
That's not really a compelling argument against them, considering why they happen. It's like saying "war is bad". I mean, yes.
He didn't understand why he did what he did.
> just wait until the American version of the French Revolution happens
We should all be trying to actively prevent that. The French Revolution was a complete failure and mostly succeeded in killing poor people and launching Napoleon's wars.
That doesn't matter, and I don't think your comment makes any difference. The fact is that a lot of people understand why he (may have) did what he did.
>We should all be trying to actively prevent that. The French Revolution was a complete failure and mostly succeeded in killing poor people and launching Napoleon's wars.
The same or worse will happen if it happens here. But when half of middle class jobs are just gone, you don't leave the people with many alternatives but violence.
And spreading the early iterations of the liberal democracy y’all love so much.
Well, let's see:
- Most of the nobility escaped the French Revolution unharmed. By the way, wealth is a lot portable for today's magnates than it was for the French nobility deriving their income from their land holdings.
- Some of those who went to the block were nobles but most were ordinary people.
- The leader of the revolution, Robespierre, was himself executed in the infighting after the French Revolution, a very neat own goal. Bonus fact: his time in power was called the Reign Of Terror.
- The First Republic lasted only 10 years before Napoleon Bonaparte took the throne.
In a turbulent time, always seek to be led by those with a proper understanding of revolutions and their context. Generally, those who romanticize the French Revolution don't pass that test.
I don't give a shit. When half of the middle class of America is unemployed, it's going to look very different than the French Revolution, whatever might happen.
Think about the fact that it is sick, and it is what people are saying.
We are sick right now.
https://www.wired.com/story/epstein-files-tech-elites-gates-...