This can be a tricky topic to talk about. Most people don't understand their personal problems as part of any larger framework: this makes it impossible to understand and address any systematic problems. On the other hand, a deterministic framework that fully predicts behavior and outcomes robs people of their agency. I think the article does a good job of being nuanced on this. I guess people are just upset about the tone? (even though it mainly just criticizes a type of columnist)
I believe the article is written in a vague and condescending way, which is kind of standard operating procedure for New York columnists working for billionaire-slain-and-resurrected rags like Gawker. If it had a constructive message really intended in it outside of the usual /r/getmotivated :reddit-logo: messaging, and it actually wanted to reach people outside of the columnist's own clique, tone does matter.
I guess I didn't get the same vibe from it. From my perspective it's criticisms are aimed at other columnists, not at regular people. And it doesn't absolve capitalism of blame from personal problems, but criticizes the attitude of blaming everything on capitalism and using that as a reason not to improve yourself
If it isn't aimed at the working class whatsoever, and all its quite privileged suggestions are accurately aimed at the privileged, what is there for the rest of us to even get from it? It's like eavesdropping on brunch while waiting tables.
I stand corrected, the article criticizes a certain belief so this could be relevant to working class people who hold this belief. And it criticizes the columnists that perpetuate that belief. Also, what suggestions does it give that are privileged?
On the other hand, a deterministic framework that fully predicts behavior and outcomes robs people of their agency.
Being predictable is not the same as being controlled, but also I've argued about compatiblism a thousand times and don't feel like doing it again so if you disagree then I guess I've been owned.
This can be a tricky topic to talk about. Most people don't understand their personal problems as part of any larger framework: this makes it impossible to understand and address any systematic problems. On the other hand, a deterministic framework that fully predicts behavior and outcomes robs people of their agency. I think the article does a good job of being nuanced on this. I guess people are just upset about the tone? (even though it mainly just criticizes a type of columnist)
I believe the article is written in a vague and condescending way, which is kind of standard operating procedure for New York columnists working for billionaire-slain-and-resurrected rags like Gawker. If it had a constructive message really intended in it outside of the usual /r/getmotivated :reddit-logo: messaging, and it actually wanted to reach people outside of the columnist's own clique, tone does matter.
I guess I didn't get the same vibe from it. From my perspective it's criticisms are aimed at other columnists, not at regular people. And it doesn't absolve capitalism of blame from personal problems, but criticizes the attitude of blaming everything on capitalism and using that as a reason not to improve yourself
If it isn't aimed at the working class whatsoever, and all its quite privileged suggestions are accurately aimed at the privileged, what is there for the rest of us to even get from it? It's like eavesdropping on brunch while waiting tables.
I stand corrected, the article criticizes a certain belief so this could be relevant to working class people who hold this belief. And it criticizes the columnists that perpetuate that belief. Also, what suggestions does it give that are privileged?
Being predictable is not the same as being controlled, but also I've argued about compatiblism a thousand times and don't feel like doing it again so if you disagree then I guess I've been owned.
Yeah you're right.