The Future

What did they mean by this?

And why do these people have a VR headset…? Is it running a simulated version of capitalism which doesn't collapse because of the falling rate of profit?

Also fuck that character requirement thing, holy shit.

Other urls found in this thread:

I can't even fathom a situation where the Tories could efficiently process automation, it would be inconceivable.



Lol the right is actually Socialist Southern U.S. in 20 years, those shipping drones are stolen from the neo feudalist empire formally known as Amazon, undisputed Ruler of Lower NewYork.

The virgin anprim vs the Chad anarcho-transhumanism

I like how there are fewer people (and no brown people) on the right. Really makes you think (about revolting I mean.)

How exactly do conservatives propose to prevent the left image from happening without heavy regulation or straight up expropriation from their precious private businesses?

I found it quite confusing until I noticed you read it like a manga. The matrix take is interesting, but the ending is kind of a downer, and you never find out if bot F4G0-T had to find a new job for only breaking one hand during the negotiation or if it'd be fired anyway because of the new model.

I bet you think the entire state of New York is the city of New York.

pssst…they're lying
or they're expecting factory workers to learn angular

They don't care, because they will still make money. If they don't currently care about the bottom few thousand people starving homeless in the streets, why would they care about the bottom twenty million people starving homeless in the streets? They'll just milk every dollar from the people who can afford it, until there is nobody left, and then they'll eat each other and extinct humanity.

How can conservatives create synthetic sentient life?

Technoskepticism or eat a bullet.


This but unironically.




There is absolutely nothing wrong with becoming a perfect sterile machine or a posthuman cyborg.

LessWrong is the last bastion of rationalist retard cultists, but Roko's Basilisk is possibly the dumbest thing to come from them.

“The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.”

He a commodity naow

Conservatives in a nutshell. Why, if we could just get rid of all the Muslims and gays and blacks, the country would just instantaneously pop into a perfect utopia!

Because pic related? I imagine people think they'll be skyping, getting memos, basically be looking at the web 24/7 for business related means. Or not idk


Would be more believable if we didn't have an entire wing of social science dedicated to social engineering and entrenched in the education system tbh

You do realize Marx considered the two synonymous, right?

I was expecting this to be from some out of touch ignorant buffoon in their 50s+ but this guy is only 33, fucking hell.

Wew, what a load of shit


A careerist politician who sucked Cameron's dick to get a landed position in a Tory safe seat whilst being widely hated by other Tories for being incompetent and falsifying his CV and his bullshit "I pulled myself by my bootstraps and now run a successful business" story. To top it all off; This A-listed nothing blames all criticism as racism.
What a fucking joker.

How on earth did this man manage to have a successful career after graduating from Cambridge? What a rags to riches story.


Honesty I don't really consider them seperately, I always forget New York is a state and I'm sure if you sked me in the right tone I'd say New York City is the state , but I was talking about the actual city, honestly don't even know where lower New York would be. It just sounded funny.

Was he right about leftists?

not really. He is attacking the same false version of "leftism" that Holla Forumstards attack - equating the left with social movements

Much of his argument centers around the fact that you shouldn't fight for the rights of groups without being part of that group - or that groups having to fight for rights in the first place serves as evidence that they don't deserve those rights. It's tautological and makes no sense.

So in essence it's really a straw man argument - it's like watching a /r/the_donald poster BTFO some made-up version of a Marxist


the fact these terms have been memed to oblivion by neoliberals doesn't make them less desirable, nor change the fact they are only attainable after socialist restructuration of the economy.

this, long term growth is desirable if undertaken properly (e.g. minimizing long term ecological impact). Growth becomes a perversion of itself under capitalism because its focus is too near-sighted, and it becomes an end unto itself rather than a means to an end, with that end being a happier society

He's definitely right about idpol liberals but fails to distinguish them from class-conscience leftists and ends up sounding edgy. Though I think he has a point with psychological projection of defeatism and self hatred that most activists tend to exhibit. These people aren't exactly known to come from a psychologically stable background

I think that's a fair analysis. I figured he truly meant "neo-liberals" when he mentioned leftists the same way Holla Forums users do.

Personally I find the psychological projection argument to be an irrelevant personal attack, akin to calling fascists "jobless manchild losers". Activists are simply people disaffected with society. Compare that to mainstream politicians, who don't seek to radically change society, and instead seek a position within the existing power structure. I think it's easy to see which one is worse