I don't think that's quite what the author is saying, I think they just don't really understand their own argument very well. They seem to say that living within the conditions of modern capitalism can lead to significant disabilities or a disruption of the capacity to interact with society in the nebulous good way, which they assert that we are all trying to live. The problem, is that they are also very, very stupid and not particularly good at understanding the function of the human mind, and thus wrote that... unfortunate essay.
Stripped of all its garbage, it can perhaps be reformatted into a less stupid statement: "Capitalism is almost certainly contributing to your struggle to compete with the material, societal, and personal demands placed on you by yourself and the world around you, but there is a danger of allowing that fact to become an excuse. You may not have the agency or control you should have, but that doesn't excuse not using the agency and control you do have. If the fact that capitalism is causing executive disfunction in you becomes a reason to not use what little agency and control you have, you will inevitably have a less meaningful and full life than you otherwise would."
Still not particularly compassionate, but not entirely stupid, either.
Your version attacks capitalism whereas their version defends it. They wrote it this way because they wanted to defend it, if they wanted to attack capitalism they would have wrote it another way.
No, they also acknowledge the role of capitalism in causing harm, they just try to downplay it via a particularly stupid set of rhetorical games that manage to be both insulting and completely incorrect.
Acknowledging capitalism does harm isn't incompatible with defending capitalism. The capitalists do it everytime they make any kind of "new deal" with the working class to prevent revolution.
I don't really see that what I wrote as a summery there was different, I guess. Sure, I cut out the deeply incoherent ramble that may be where she attempts to defend capitalism in the perpetual "I can fix him" of social democrats, but even then, I cut it because it was mostly a bunch of mental gymnastics with no actual structure that didn't seem to have any point whatsoever beyond some attempt at appearing intellectual.
Well, yes, the point of think-pieces isn't to be useful or wise, it is to give incredibly boring people like me something to talk about other than the weather.
I kinda intended to make that point in what I said, but I guess I didn't: Nothing about most "think"-pieces includes much in the way of thought. They are, almost solely, summations of someone else's thought through the lens of someone who did half the analysis they should have in order to understand it. Their value to PMC society is not in being smart or insightful, it is to either provide a thing which can be agreed upon in order to demonstrate one's moral rectitude or it is to provide a thing which can be disagreed with in order to demonstrate the deep and thoughtful nature of the reader. They serve as an alternative to talking about whichever other cultural artifact is currently widely known and discussed, and in that they also serve as a social semaphore, signaling that the reader is sufficiently cultured or whatever.
I don't think that's quite what the author is saying, I think they just don't really understand their own argument very well. They seem to say that living within the conditions of modern capitalism can lead to significant disabilities or a disruption of the capacity to interact with society in the nebulous good way, which they assert that we are all trying to live. The problem, is that they are also very, very stupid and not particularly good at understanding the function of the human mind, and thus wrote that... unfortunate essay.
Stripped of all its garbage, it can perhaps be reformatted into a less stupid statement: "Capitalism is almost certainly contributing to your struggle to compete with the material, societal, and personal demands placed on you by yourself and the world around you, but there is a danger of allowing that fact to become an excuse. You may not have the agency or control you should have, but that doesn't excuse not using the agency and control you do have. If the fact that capitalism is causing executive disfunction in you becomes a reason to not use what little agency and control you have, you will inevitably have a less meaningful and full life than you otherwise would."
Still not particularly compassionate, but not entirely stupid, either.
Your version attacks capitalism whereas their version defends it. They wrote it this way because they wanted to defend it, if they wanted to attack capitalism they would have wrote it another way.
No, they also acknowledge the role of capitalism in causing harm, they just try to downplay it via a particularly stupid set of rhetorical games that manage to be both insulting and completely incorrect.
Acknowledging capitalism does harm isn't incompatible with defending capitalism. The capitalists do it everytime they make any kind of "new deal" with the working class to prevent revolution.
It's socdem bullshit.
I don't really see that what I wrote as a summery there was different, I guess. Sure, I cut out the deeply incoherent ramble that may be where she attempts to defend capitalism in the perpetual "I can fix him" of social democrats, but even then, I cut it because it was mostly a bunch of mental gymnastics with no actual structure that didn't seem to have any point whatsoever beyond some attempt at appearing intellectual.
It wasn't different in the actual content per se, but it is framed completely differently.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Well, yes, the point of think-pieces isn't to be useful or wise, it is to give incredibly boring people like me something to talk about other than the weather.
deleted by creator
I kinda intended to make that point in what I said, but I guess I didn't: Nothing about most "think"-pieces includes much in the way of thought. They are, almost solely, summations of someone else's thought through the lens of someone who did half the analysis they should have in order to understand it. Their value to PMC society is not in being smart or insightful, it is to either provide a thing which can be agreed upon in order to demonstrate one's moral rectitude or it is to provide a thing which can be disagreed with in order to demonstrate the deep and thoughtful nature of the reader. They serve as an alternative to talking about whichever other cultural artifact is currently widely known and discussed, and in that they also serve as a social semaphore, signaling that the reader is sufficiently cultured or whatever.
deleted by creator
Just wait for the Discourse Funko Pops.
deleted by creator