I agree with you that the systems we have built keep the powerful in power. That’s what they get out of the deal.

But the point of civilization has less to do with them, and more to do with interactions between regular people. If I have a dispute with you, for example, over some property, we can call on lawyers, police, regulatory bodies and similar to help us settle our dispute. We maybe don’t like the resolution, but, by and large, we accept it.

Without those systems, I could just beat you up, and take the property for myself. You’re only real option would be to kill me, and take it back.

Similar, we can do things like vote out our leaders, or move to other places. We have options besides burning down the castle, or setting up a guillotine.

Civilization is about giving us that alternative.

That’s wife material, that is.

Not helping.

Nothing got hijacked, “civilization” structured around the threat of violence was exploitative from the start.

It’s not a threat of violence, it’s a preferable alternative to violence, for both sides. Revolts aren’t great for those in power, but they are catastrophic for a significant number of those not in power.

And you are missing mine.

Removed by mod

The government gives the working class a way to have their grievances heard and addressed in a way other than starting a rebellion.

Yes, it serves to keep the powerful in power, but that’s irrelevant to my point. It also serves to make sure the little people get taken care of well enough that we don’t kill the ones in power.

For a more specific example, see unions. The alternative to unions is plant managers getting killed.

And explained that he was using AI to do a part of the job that needs to be done by humans, because it helps them figure is the solution.

That’s not why we built them. They got hijacked for that, and they need fixing.

They were built so we had an alternative to killing each other over disputes.

AI slop can be bad but this Bradley doesn’t understand that businesses exist to make money.

This is generally done by making a quality product, not a pile of shit.

You can get awry with selling people shit, if you charge shit prices. But the kind of assholes described in the article are gonna try to sell shit at AAA prices. Then they are gonna blame their team for not AIing hard enough.

Violence is almost always the solution. Civilization is an effort to find a better solution. But people who reject the systems we’ve built up seem to forget why we built then.

This is how you know the Navy isn’t like Star Trek.

We’ve given them plenty of opportunity. We tried to pass something closer to universal health care, and they shot it down. We tried to raise the minimum wage, they shot it down. Tried to relive student loans, tried to make housing more affordable, nothing.

They have had their warnings.

Looked to me like an attempt to pull off an in-line bulleted list.

Shot in officer involved shooting?

Shot by a police officer.

I mean, we’ve been trying to do other things, but they won’t play nice. I guess we need to exterminate a few, then offer the rest the opt-in to pay higher taxes as an alternative.

Yea, this guy tap-dances well, but if he wasn’t lying to Congress right there, ill eat my hat.

Why the duck are they making a MTG movie instead of Transformers One 2?

As I understand it, these sweatshop jobs do resist the standard of living in the areas they are in. The people there don’t have the option to work a job that we would consider good. They work the job we consider terrible, and they get paid more than they would doing other jobs.

To make a moral judgement, we must balance between “terrible working conditions, no protections, maximum wealth extraction,” on the one hand, and “no infrastructure, no job, no money” on the other. Sadly, there is no profit in making the world better for everyone.

Oh dear.