Survivor!

Catherine Driscoll catherine.driscoll at adelaide.edu.au
Wed Oct 25 00:09:51 PDT 2000


Matt Cramer writes:


>The robots dress alike, talk alike, and think
> > >alike.
> >
> > um... sorry but since when do robots have debt, toys, thoughts, (attempts
> > at) individuality, dress, talk, thoughts (again)
> > ok yes i'm missing something i know
>
>Yes, the concept of "metaphor".

Ah, I've heard of it yes, but I don't encourage it.


>What would you choose to represent the people who seem to be walking
>around in a sleep, who:
>
>Work as slaves for a meager wage that they...
>...spend wastefully in mass consumption of useless goods...
>...but the wage isn't enough so they...
>...drown themselves in debt
>Watch 6 hours of tv a day
>Feed their children filth from McDonalds

I'd like to say slaves don't get paid a wage, wasteful spending can be highly pleasurable, I'd rather blame banks etc. than debtors for the ease of getting in debt-mess, television is not evil, it's patronising in the extreme to condemn parents for corrupting their children's bodies with fast food, and so on -- but I'm sure all of this is either too literal or too irrelevant of me. Can I just settle for -- I want call them anything because no glib label will sum up their experience of their own life and the constraints on and pleasures in it.

However, I will allow myself to single out this:

'Walk by a homeless person and not see the:

misery of his existence

threat he poses to their lifestyle'

Who does this? How do you know? And, apart from that, how does a homeless person pose a threat to the lifestyle of this putative 'ordinary' person?


>...> >It would be more useful to evaluate the social darwinist theories
> > >providing the foundation for programs like affirmative action.
> >
> > this connection is right off the scale of anything i understand
> > please explain?
>
>Why is affirmative action good, and/or necessary?

I was asking how social darwinism founded affirmative action my attitude to affirmative action is not at issue


> > [i promise, for people accustomed to my infidelity in email exchanges, to
> > be in this relationship for at least 5 days]
>
>I'm flattered. :-)

I have a feeling you should be.

Catherine



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list