zlacker

>>Strato+(OP)
I'm a little bit aghast at all the comments saying this is normal or no big deal. Maybe it is normal (or at least common), but it shouldn't be. If you believe it's no big deal, I can't agree. I can see this kind of behaviour from adolescents, but adults should understand that words are meaningful and have consequences, and that even if you disagree with someone, they're still a human being who deserves some modicum of respect, or at least decency. Wishing a slow death on someone, even rhetorically, shows neither, to put it mildly.

>>tempes+EM
Reading this article by Rebecca Solnit [0] posted on HN here [1] absolutely helped me make sense of the Garry Tan story, and what is going on in Californian politics.

It's well worth reading, but is a long and initially tedious article bemoaning the passing of a gentler, humane culture.

Then about halfway through it grew some balls and teeth, and frankly I found it shocking. I had no idea California was this degenerate. And for those too close to it, no, this isn't just how every country's politics is. It reads like Chicago in the 1920/30's, or perhaps more like Mexico or El Salvator, with billionaires instead of drug lords.

Read alongside "The Californian Ideology" [2] it's eye opening and paints a great picture of the slow trajectory of San Francisco and California from a left-liberal counter-culture to extremist far-right billionaire technofascism.

[0] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n03/rebecca-solnit/in-th...

[1] >>39226296

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology

>>nonran+WX
> Tech billionaires often seem more interested in surviving the apocalypse than preventing it.

- pretty much sums everything we observe today. And it's only getting worse, despite tech advancements. Great article.

>>dandan+gx1
I find it interesting that you added "despite tech advancements". I don't see how the level of technological advancement enters into this equation at all.

>>JohnFe+5F1
tech advancements = improvements of life for the whole humanity, and thus overall happiness. But it seems this naive thinking doesn't work in this world.

>>dandan+OL1
> tech advancements = improvements of life for the whole humanity

Yes, that equation is inaccurate. Tech advancements mean more powerful tools. Tools that can be used to improve things or can just as easily be used to make things worse.

The entire history of mankind indicates that it will always end up being a mix of both.

>>JohnFe+wh2
So you do agree that tech advancement could in fact slow or stop the apocalypse? That's all they were getting at.

Unless you want to argue that the lion's share of tech advancements instead doomed humanity.