Re: Disabled In Socialist Countries
I have yet to stumble upon the sort of Capitalist who says that outlandish CEO pay is a good thing. I do feel like a lot of people grossly underestimate the work that top executives have to do—I seem to remember Bill Gates and Steve Jobs puting in 15 hour days during the heights of their executiveship—but even then, who does anything worth a billion dollars?
I think you mistaken the problems as moral ones - the problem with not having labour properly compensated means that capitalism will inevitably collapse after most capital is forced to the top. Think about the example with the CEO for a second, the CEO can often buy many times more things than the people who are actually producing things. This means over time money is moving away from the producers and more towards the people pushing money around. Actually, I'm pretty sure that its impossible to not have a net loss over time here. An analogy would be like a machine working with 100% efficiency - some heat is lost to friction and thus you can't run a machine perpetually without energy input.
AKA, these problems don't go away just because we say we disagree with them morally.
Re: Gender. It is off topic and I wish it hadn't come up, but I will say that the Gender Studies noise-making annoys the hell out of me, because I find the Gender Binary annoying and archaeic and just why? (The why is presumably "division of labor based on sexual dimorphism", but this ain't the neolithic, dangit!). What does preaching about it accomplish, other than getting people who didn't care in the first place to double down on the defaults as somehow infallible and unchangeable? Have Gender Studies and Gender Theory done anything to unambiguously improve equality, make life better for those who don't fit the WASP traditional genders? Done anything useful whatsoever, other than turn would-be church-ladies into Vice Admiral Holdo?
I think what is actually happening is that idpol academics, while having meaningful contributions within their field, are working on very specific, detailed issues that are difficult to discuss with a general audience - whether or not those issues are "worth it" or not to discuss is anyone's guess. The activist on the other hand is trying to have their individuality recognized; at its core, queer issues do actually affect everyone because they are fundamentally about freedom of bodily autonomy and _expression_. Should society decide for us what is and what isn't acceptable? And this is an important question for all of us - that is often lost in the fog of people trying to finding moral justice.
In my opinion I look at the situation very simply - our natural origins interferes with our freedom of autonomy and identity. We will eventually overtake our natural origins, through technology, to find that freedom. These social justice movements are less about morals and more about accessing more freedoms as individuals.
I do think that one of the biggest problems with academics is that it in of itself is a huge source of privilege - how many people get to dedicate their lives to the precise issues afflicting a specific demographic of queer black women in a suburb of Phoenix, Arizona? Most of us have to live the hard life and in a way part of your frustration is actually a form of protest against the academic elitism.
Highly disagree with space based infrastructure, huge waste of money, time and resources when we really need to organize ourselves on Earth first. Elon Musk is a good example that imho we can't really rely on billionaires to do the work for us.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
