>> you should be working to burn it all the fuck down to the ground.
> ...which is literally never the correct answer.
But it's the answer chosen all the time. If "entry-level tech jobs are getting wiped out," some (usually distributed) group made the decision to burn those new-grads plans to the ground. Why should they be insulated from similar decisions?
Working "to burn it all the fuck down to the ground" is just spreading that "love" to those groups. Those groups should be threatened with that, because otherwise they're not going to restrain themselves.
You have to understand lots of people on HN want to be one of those people on top eventually so they will bend over backwards to apologize for the executive class until they supposedly get there.
> You have to understand lots of people on HN want to be one of those people on top eventually so they will bend over backwards to apologize for the executive class until they supposedly get there.
Oh, I totally understand that. HN is full of workers LARPing as tycoons; advocating for policies, attitudes, and ideology that are most likely going to end up being harmful to their own interests.
There are also a lot of people totally oblivious to the local minima locations of the working class life. Like the fact that a young, elderly, or childless person may be able to realize the benefits of revolution for either themselves or at least their unborn or adult children, a very large segment of middle age society has young children who paradoxically would be better off from the revolution but may be more likely to die in the process than others due to the fact they cannot survive the thin margins of survival that the others can survive on during a lean revolutionary time.
Given that born young children can die but unborn children cannot, and that adult children are more resilient, the middle age worker have always been some of the most resistant to revolution, but not because they are bootlickers.
> the middle age worker have always been some of the most resistant to revolution, but not because they are bootlickers.
That may be true generally, but not here. It's typically bootlickers who read a few libertarian economists and have let themselves be tricked into thinking 401k means they should want the same thins as a capitalist tycoon.
And I'm not so much advocating for an actual violent revolution than for the fear of one. And definitely not the kind of passivity advocated up-thread, that counsels acceptance that tycoons (real and wannabe) driving over any plans a pleb has for a comfortable life. Don't do that, much better to do something like vote for some psycho who'll bomb all the TMSC fabs and AI datacenters to do a rug-pull over the tycoon's plans to shrink the middle class even more with greater automation.
> ...which is literally never the correct answer.
But it's the answer chosen all the time. If "entry-level tech jobs are getting wiped out," some (usually distributed) group made the decision to burn those new-grads plans to the ground. Why should they be insulated from similar decisions?
Working "to burn it all the fuck down to the ground" is just spreading that "love" to those groups. Those groups should be threatened with that, because otherwise they're not going to restrain themselves.