Understanding of the feminine libido has been repressed, not only from science, but from women themselves, until fairly recently.

Dankeschön 😎

Do you have the citation for the Chomsky reference? Would love to get a better handle on these concepts.

Part of the broader struggle, but not the endpoint of the struggle.

Proto-based—not yet fully based—, yet necessary for absolute based-ness to come to fruition.

Temp unblock as I am editing comments for undertandability. One last tip for you: When I encounter a misunderstanding I have made about what someone meant, I apologize, ask questions, and perhaps give some recommendations about how they might communicate that better. We all make typos and bad grammar judgments. Check through my thousands of comments and you will see dozens of examples of me working through miscommunications with others—both errors on mine and their end that we identify and engage with as unintentional imperfections.

What you do when you encounter a misunderstanding is: “Jesus Fucking Christ” “I’m sorry that you think reality changes depending on what you want at any given moment.” “It is quite literally what you said.”

These are poor communication skills and they hurt the people around you.

There’s something of a myth of a “model demographic” that I think is being misapplied by those “falling for the propaganda.” Of course, it’s a meme, but when I refer to certain groups or individuals in a positive light, I don’t mean to imply they were ethically perfect or without flaws. What I mean is that they were actively challenging the systems that needed to be challenged. In that sense, the praise is about their resistance to a deeply exploitative system, not an endorsement of every action or belief they held.

For example, many view Malcolm X positively—not because he was without contradictions, but because he challenged oppressive systems and presented a radical alternative. Similarly, someone like Luigi Mangione might be admired for resisting corporate or state control in his own way, even though the context is different.

totally valid perspective to take on the matter. i can do my little piece to combat that but in the end i am just a droplet among the waves.

i think we are certainly doing slightly better than the luddites. i see a ton of conversations about how artwork and texts are stolen, and the insane energy/water usage AI uses. those come with calls to ethically accquire training materials and to regulate eco efficiency. that’s certainly more specific than the worst possible public response of something like “ban neural networks” or something haha

Yeah. I upvoted WoodScientist because they are technically right. But in a real economy? There isn’t a significant enough of a demand for human creativity and so it plays out completely opposed to what they were saying.

Genuinely would love to hear more if you have the expertise/time? I’m not that great with economics and I don’t have a jstor account sadly but I have always understood that industrialization served to depress wages and so was surprised by PugJesus’ counterclaim.

Deciding what I said before during and after I said it once again. I’m sorry to say this man as I once had a lot of respect for you, but telling people what they mean to say even as they constantly correct you is the epitome of bad faith. Blocked.

This isn’t true, though.

I wasn’t saying the mechanizations weren’t part of an exploitative system. What I meant is that the machines themselves weren’t designed to exploit, but the exploitation came from the broader structure of cottage industries and the contract-based work. I wasn’t claiming labor alienation started with the Industrial Revolution—just that it became more mechanized with the rise of factories. (I will edit my above comment to clarify the confusion.)

Alienation in the Marxist sense had already taken place long before this.

Exactly, and that’s the point I was making. The Industrial Revolution didn’t create alienation, but it intensified and mechanized it.

real

yes 👍

And what makes the Luddite struggle for justice, but the struggle of horse breeders not? Why are the horse breeders exempted from justice in their struggle, but the Luddites lionized?

Horse breeders were not being replaced by workers under brutal conditions. Massive difference there.

This you?

Yeah… thats me saying how they aren’t exactly the same. Do you think that me explaining one key difference means that I disagree with every other similarity? Like if I said “apples are red oranges are orange” you’re coming at me and saying “MISINFORMATION THEY ARE BOTH FRUITS”

Your entire OP, as well as subsequent comments, characterizes the Luddites as exploited workers fighting against oppression.

Agree to disagree. You are not reading right, and everyone else is understanding what I am saying. Again you have this loaded perception of what I am saying before during and after I actually say it.

From the source I quoted (if you have a free JSTOR account, you can access it yourself)

Thanks I will take this note. I still do think it’s worth noting the worsening labor conditions which cannot be denied, but I admit that I have an underexposed understanding of negative wage growth in this instance. My apologies.

You literally didn’t say profit.

Ugh another fault of mine. Here: “Factory owners took advantage of this by pocketing the “savings” from lower wages, while workers saw little benefit.” I misrecalled that I used the word profit but instead I used the colloquialism “savings.” The intent was the term profit and the rest of my position stands. My apologies.

And, while you’re at it, point out to me the distinction you apparently meant to make here “I never said workers saw no benefit. What I said was that workers faced lower wages and worse labor conditions.” VS “while workers saw little benefit." This you?

Like? Do I really need to explain that “no” and “little” are not synonymous? This is so silly!

important to clarify that child labor wasn’t the primary source of the Luddites’ opposition, but was certainly a part of the system they were trying to smash!! huge and important facts, ty for sharing!

Formed on ‘mechanical exploitation’ almost a century old at that point, right?

By this, I assume you’re referring to technologies like spinning wheels, looms, and similar machinery, correct?

These early mechanizations were not inherently exploitative because they did not separate the laborer from the product of their work. For example, (edit: ideally) a worker using a loom or spinning wheel could complete a day’s work and earn wages that were roughly equivalent to the difference between the revenue from selling the product and the cost of materials. (edit: This doesn’t mean that the laborer wasn’t being exploited at all, only that the mechanical innovations were not leading the exploitation).

However, this all changed with the full force of the Industrial Revolution, where these and other innovations were used (in addition to already existing forces in the field) to separate the laborer from their work. (edit: Innovations did not begin this separation, only amplified the scale.) With the increased scale of machinery, labor became (further) commodified. Machines were no longer designed to work with laborers but to replace them entirely.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2596251

Thanks for sharing the link! I don’t have access to it through any institution, but if you have any quotes or key points, feel free to pass them along.

Why do you think it’s such a light thing to spread misinformation?

I don’t think it’s light, but when I counter misinformation, I try to stay calm and avoid getting personal. Why do you seem so upset when we disagree on an innocuous historical point? Who am I hurting by being wrong here?

Now, let’s address some of the points you’ve raised:

Luddites were just working for justice!

I didn’t say that. The Luddites were fighting for justice, among other things, but not just that.

It’s nothing like horse breeders opposing motorized transport!

I didn’t say they were nothing alike, I said they weren’t exactly the same. I explained how the Luddites’ resistance was different, mainly due to the exploitation involved.

The Luddites were the poor workers against oppression!

I’ve never said that, and I fully recognize that the Luddites weren’t necessarily of low income.

The Industrial Revolution drove down wages for everyone!

I said it drove down wages for both skilled and unskilled workers in fields affected by industrialization. I’m open to correction if that’s inaccurate.

Capitalists pocketed the income

I never said “income,” I said profit. There’s a key difference, and it’s in my original comment.

While workers saw no benefit!

I never said workers saw no benefit. What I said was that workers faced lower wages and worse labor conditions.

So that’s… six straw men in a single comment. One misrepresentation happens, sure, but none of the words you put in my mouth are things I would ever say. It seems like you’re assuming what I’m saying before, during, and after I say it. This is why the conversation isn’t going productively. Some people call it “shadow boxing,” and it leads to misunderstandings.

Yep! I think this is totally a fair criticism /gen

Nowhere will you find me saying the Luddites were the perfect example of labor relations. :) As my post says, “pretty based” is about all I will allow.

Yeah, exactly! The early mechanization wasn’t focused on exploiting workers—it was about improving productivity alongside them. This contrasts sharply with the mechanized exploitation of the Industrial Revolution, where the focus shifted to reducing labor costs and extracting value from workers.