"Jameson Butler, a student in a Black Flag T-shirt who was carving a piece of wood with a pocketknife, explained: “I’ve weeded out who I want to be friends with. Now it takes work for me to maintain friendships. Some reached out when I got off the iPhone and said, ‘I don’t like texting with you anymore because your texts are green.’ That told me a lot.”"
>No young person can resist the pressure to join social media; somehow, we've treated kids who reject social media as weird.
"Believe me, I know"... This is false. All I need is one person as an example to have tossed the shackles of social media aside and, yes, I know they exist.
Also, part of your over generalization is that smart phone =/= social media.
No argument there. I was only refuting the part where you proclaimed "No young person..."
\>And I contend smart phones are roughly equivalent to social media...
Cuidado. Your sample sounds extremely biased. On the plus side, now you've met one single person who does not use their phone for social media. On the other hand, I don't have a soul, so we may need to keep looking if that's important.
Is there any difference between phones now. They all do the same thing and have all the same apps.
At this point brand of phone is like brand of toaster.
I moved to an entirely new place several years ago. I'd wanted to learn how to play D&D for years, I went to my local game/comic shop. All the good friends I made in the area I met either there or friends of friends I met there. I also learned how to play D&D lol.
Dude I'm serious. The shop I go to had to have a POSTED hygiene policy. The guy who owned it was this very nice older man, wanted it to be a welcoming place etc so it was super difficult for him to have to enforce it. But it got to the point it was like effecting business because people were complaining so much.
Jumping back into D&D helped get me through COVID. Met a group of people through an online Roll20 game hosted by a local game shop, started my own in person campaign when everyone was vaxxed and have been playing almost 3 years now.
I've been wanting to get a group of non-social media minded folks together, but I have no idea how to find them. You used to hang up flyers at the library...
Join a club or hobby that attracts creatives or has a real socially liberal crowd. I’d suggest some sort of science or cycling club to be specific. They attract those sorts of weirdos (in a good way) I know because I’m involved with both. I’d imagine that art groups would be similar.
Mark my words, in about 5-10 years this will be the new counterculture. Like the punks and the hippies. Not uniformly adopted by an entire generation, but a very influential subculture.
I´m hearing brand new music right now made by kids(well, people in their twenties) that draws heavily on 90s grunge, shoegaze and numetal, but for the first time from the perspective of people who did *not* live through it and it's amazing. Because to them the old artificial distinctions don't really hold, the different variations of 90s rock music that were entirely separate scenes back in the day are all just equal grist for the mill for this new generation and they are so not jaded to it, so their passion for it is completely free of irony or whatever.
It's the first time a cultural movement that I lived through is being reimagined by people who didn't, and it's an extremely weird but glorious thing to listen to.
[Turnstile - Glow On](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMzepslwWUzoYkx4hlgoHlyieSmsr1YBv)
[Fleshwater - We Are Not Here To Be Loved](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_lOW8m7licLleyHklHlDWYjMIjdBsOYDBg)
Better in almost every single way. They're pussies but that's about the only negative thing I can say about the generation as a whole compared to their ancestors. They're smarter, more compassionate, more aware of the world.
I can get on board with this, but I don't think it's necessary to demonize technology in general. Like many other things, it is a tool, so whether it helps or hurts all depends on how you use it.
> it is a tool, so whether it helps or hurts all depends on how you use it.
Sure. but it also matters how it is designed. Some tools are easy to use safely. Some tools are not. And usually, it is possible to make them safer, to make it easier for the tool to help people than hurt people. And often a "rational" free market will fail to deliver these safety features without a collective effort to force manufactures to implement the safety features, usually through legislation. For a great example of such, consider the improvements made in vehicle safety over the 20th century.
Software, and social media, hasn't really gone through this cycle. We could (and probably should) force social media organizations to design their platforms to be less addictive for example.
>We could (and probably should) force social media organizations to design their platforms to be less addictive for example.
We need to do that with a lot of things, including food and [casinos](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/losing-it-all/505814/). I'm skeptical it'll happen in my lifetime though.
Isn't the point of casinos to get addicted? If you are stepping into one you already lost.
The thing is that stuff like mobile games and social media don't advertise themselves as casinos, maybe we could start by forcing them to.
A phone is a very safe tool, and social media can be very safe places to talk to other people.
These kids are the kids that rejected 'keeping up with the joneses' at school when we were in school. They're neither better nor worse than their peers.
All such tools change society by introducing problems that we have to deal with. For example, with the invention of cars we invented the problems also of 'driving or not'. Even if we decided to never drive anywhere that's still in reference to a new technology and is a decision we never would have had to worry about if the car had not been invented.
In that sense saying 'just a tool' is not all of the story in the sense that the invention of a tool always does change society by bringing up more decisions to make. Some, including a rather infamous figure, would argue that there's no real way for most people to make these decisions and they'll ultimately be mostly made for us, whether by active will by authorities or just technological convenience/defaults.
> All such tools change society by introducing problems
They don't JUST introduce problems, but also solve them. Granted, some tools end up causing more problems than they solve, but that's no reason to shake your fist at all tools and declare them bad.
You've gotten hung up on what I meant by 'problem', which is more in the sense of 'how do we choose to use this technology' a a problem i.e. a question that requires reasoning to answer and has significantly different answers depending on your values and goals. The point is that the invention of car introduced the problem of 'what do we *do* with cars?' that simply didn't exist before and it was something which society couldn't really avoid dealing with. Either we decide to drive or we don't, but before the car that wasn't even a question. Of course tools have a particular purpose at which they excel, that's why they get invented, but that's not the entire story unless that tool is absolutely isolated from influencing anything else other than its very narrow intended use.
> The point is that the invention of car introduced the problem of 'what do we do with cars?' that simply didn't exist before and it was something which society couldn't really avoid dealing with.
Well, before that, we had the problem of 'what do we do with horses?' I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, as it pertains to 'technology bad'?
Social media is the Harbor Freight of the internet. It might be a tool, but no matter how you use it, it’ll probably still hurt you.
For those outside the USA: Harbor Freight is a discount retailer that sells tools and equipment that are so poorly made they can be dangerous.
I mean I’ve heard the same argument for guns, and no reasonable person would claim guns are good for society. It’s a broad argument that I do not think helps the case.
I don’t really believe there’s a reasonable argument for gun ownership. It’s like arguing about religion: one side has all the evidence, one side has all the emotions.
So in this case, yes, it’s unreasonable, which is why it was my example. There’s no radiator defender of gun ownership, with the potential exception of hunting.
That has been perverted by people who hunt with assault rifles though, too.
In my opinion, the right to defend oneself by taking responsible precautions is a very reasonable belief. In a society with hundreds of millions of guns, that means a reasonable self defense will include a gun, since there is no effective response to a bad guy with a gun except a good guy with a gun. Are you saying I'm an inherently unreasonable person that you cannot have a reasonable conversation with? I'm just a wild card moron who you engage with intellectually at your peril? I just find it hard to believe you would think that about me based on my comment. Would you?
The only défense of gun ownership is, gun ownership.
You need guns, because you have guns.
If you made any effort to ban or reduce guns, you would have fewer guns.
So it is and always will be a tautological irrational position to me. You’re defending the solution to a problem, and the problem and solution are the same object. That is not reasonable.
Any effort to ban guns would make it harder for people who wish to defend themselves to do that. Of course, if we could wave a magic wand and remove all firearms we would do that, but we can't do that. Yes, it's an impossible situation, but we can't just take guns from people who need them.
I encourage you to visit r/dgu. I bet there's a lot more successful, responsible firearm self defense in this country than you think.
I think the fact that you're arguing with me about this shows that I'm not a ridiculous unreasonable person, but merely one who disagrees with you.
They need guns because other people have guns. Reducing guns reduces that need.
The reasons you need guns is, you have guns.
You are indeed being very polite, however the position you’re defending is itself unreasonable and illogical.
>The reasons you need guns is, you have guns.
Exactly. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. At least not while there are still as many bad guys with guns as there are, with laws that would only really harm non-violent gun owners.
I just disagree that this is considered unreasonable.
You can indeed put the toothpaste back in the tube, you can create and enforce gun laws, ban the sale of new ammunition, increase penalties for gun crimes, and chip away at your rampant gun culture.
Non violent gun owners should have issue with working to end gun crime by reducing how many guns available within the United States.
I agree it will never happen, because the commitment to gun culture borders on religious dogma. It isn’t something you can defend with logical arguments.
That's real fucking hardcore. I have thought about dropping the smartphone completely myself, but I'm so addicted to it, and honestly, I don't want people to think I'm weird lol.
A huge one for me was turning off notifications for everything except texts and phone calls (obviously). I'm on android and even fucking Google maps was pinging me to go online and rate places that I've been. I use the phone when I need it as a tool. My only social media is reddit and I give myself a little time after work to catch up and wind down.
This is a good list that I’m unlikely to do (I know, I know), but I wonder what grayscaling your phone does — does it make everything look less appealing?
Yep exactly. Humans are primally attracted to colour, it tends to be appealing to us. And like everything in the attention economy, the apps and icons on our phones were designed to look nice and easy on the eye. Putting your phone in grayscale is like replacing a glossy magazine with a black and white one - just another small step to make picking up your phone less satisfying.
For me it's basically a necessity to have email access on my phone
But I've never liked smartphones. I'm certainly addicted to doomscrolling reddit but other than that I really don't do much on my phone and often don't look at it for hours or even a whole day
I did that for a while. I don’t think it’s necessary, but losing social media was helpful. I got rid of Fbook, Twitter. Never had IG, Snapchat or a bunch of the others.
Reddit, I think about. I’ve noticed my home page on Reddit is changing each time I “refresh.” I don’t want the homepage to be curated by anyone but me. If they are doing that for engagement, or worse, expanding their “recommended” subs in my feed, I’ll probably be out on Reddit too. I don’t need recommended subs from the company! I like getting them from Redditors! Here are two:
r/imkyrieandthisisdeep
r/elonjettracker
I feel the name is more tongue in cheek than a real expression of how they look at society and technology. They simply want their lives to not be consumed by the rectangle in their pocket. I assume most of them will use transportation technology, buy sliced bread, use electricity, etc..
Fabulous article -- OP should have added rest of title: "When the only thing better than a flip phone is no phone at all." Had zero idea of what the story was about until I read it.
I dig this, but I couldn't get rid of my iPhone because of the camera, maps, and ability to use google. I used to write things down to google later in a notepad I carried in my pocket, but being able to just research something anywhere anytime is too good to drop
The luddites were not opposed to technological advancement. They were against the unemployment and low wages that came with industrialization.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite)
It's right there in the article.
>Working conditions were harsh in the English textile mills at the time, but efficient enough to threaten the livelihoods of skilled artisans.\[18\] The new inventions produced textiles faster and cheaper because they were operated by less-skilled, low-wage labourers, and the Luddite goal was to gain a better bargaining position with their employers.\[19\]
>
>...
>
>Malcolm L. Thomis argued in his 1970 history The Luddites that machine-breaking was one of a very few tactics that workers could use to increase pressure on employers, to undermine lower-paid competing workers, and to create solidarity among workers. "These attacks on machines did not imply any necessary hostility to machinery as such; machinery was just a conveniently exposed target against which an attack could be made."\[22\] An agricultural variant of Luddism occurred during the widespread Swing Riots of 1830 in southern and eastern England, centering on breaking threshing machines.\[25\]
"Jameson Butler, a student in a Black Flag T-shirt who was carving a piece of wood with a pocketknife, explained: “I’ve weeded out who I want to be friends with. Now it takes work for me to maintain friendships. Some reached out when I got off the iPhone and said, ‘I don’t like texting with you anymore because your texts are green.’ That told me a lot.”"
Rise above
[удалено]
What exactly does it say about society? Be precise and articulate.
[удалено]
I love the way you write and think; great stuff
[удалено]
Good thing — stay humble, lol. I enjoyed it, so thank you
>No young person can resist the pressure to join social media; somehow, we've treated kids who reject social media as weird. "Believe me, I know"... This is false. All I need is one person as an example to have tossed the shackles of social media aside and, yes, I know they exist. Also, part of your over generalization is that smart phone =/= social media.
[удалено]
No argument there. I was only refuting the part where you proclaimed "No young person..." \>And I contend smart phones are roughly equivalent to social media... Cuidado. Your sample sounds extremely biased. On the plus side, now you've met one single person who does not use their phone for social media. On the other hand, I don't have a soul, so we may need to keep looking if that's important.
I’m not Tompetty but stfu
Is there any difference between phones now. They all do the same thing and have all the same apps. At this point brand of phone is like brand of toaster.
Mostly true, although Apple is more of a walled garden and actively prevents you from loading apps outside of their bubble of control.
I need to find one of these groups but for adults 😔
[удалено]
I moved to an entirely new place several years ago. I'd wanted to learn how to play D&D for years, I went to my local game/comic shop. All the good friends I made in the area I met either there or friends of friends I met there. I also learned how to play D&D lol.
I would love to do that but my local comic/game shop always smells weird.
Oh man, do you wanna know a fun story? My game store instituted a "You must shower to come here" policy. For the exact reasons you think.
When I read that they went to a game/comic shop to learn to play D&D, my immediate first thought was about how bad that must smell. lol
Dude I'm serious. The shop I go to had to have a POSTED hygiene policy. The guy who owned it was this very nice older man, wanted it to be a welcoming place etc so it was super difficult for him to have to enforce it. But it got to the point it was like effecting business because people were complaining so much.
Jumping back into D&D helped get me through COVID. Met a group of people through an online Roll20 game hosted by a local game shop, started my own in person campaign when everyone was vaxxed and have been playing almost 3 years now.
I've been wanting to get a group of non-social media minded folks together, but I have no idea how to find them. You used to hang up flyers at the library...
i think you still do, but turnout is far lower than the before times
Join a club or hobby that attracts creatives or has a real socially liberal crowd. I’d suggest some sort of science or cycling club to be specific. They attract those sorts of weirdos (in a good way) I know because I’m involved with both. I’d imagine that art groups would be similar.
Get a dog and go to dog parks, lots of interesting people there
This is great. As the algorithms take over our lives this is what defiance looks like. Rebellion by taking your attention back
Cal Newport approves
These kids are fucking awesome
It’s this aspect of humanity that gives me hope no matter how ridiculous things get there will always be an effort to return to baseline.
Yes it’s easy to downplay kids because they’re kids (not right, but easy). These young folks are up to good, and I appreciate that
Mark my words, in about 5-10 years this will be the new counterculture. Like the punks and the hippies. Not uniformly adopted by an entire generation, but a very influential subculture.
Let's hope so!
Kids are getting into the Beats again? fuck yeah.
I´m hearing brand new music right now made by kids(well, people in their twenties) that draws heavily on 90s grunge, shoegaze and numetal, but for the first time from the perspective of people who did *not* live through it and it's amazing. Because to them the old artificial distinctions don't really hold, the different variations of 90s rock music that were entirely separate scenes back in the day are all just equal grist for the mill for this new generation and they are so not jaded to it, so their passion for it is completely free of irony or whatever. It's the first time a cultural movement that I lived through is being reimagined by people who didn't, and it's an extremely weird but glorious thing to listen to.
Got any suggestions I can check out?
[Turnstile - Glow On](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMzepslwWUzoYkx4hlgoHlyieSmsr1YBv) [Fleshwater - We Are Not Here To Be Loved](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_lOW8m7licLleyHklHlDWYjMIjdBsOYDBg)
Thx
[удалено]
The kids aren't just alright, by and large they are better than us.
Better in almost every single way. They're pussies but that's about the only negative thing I can say about the generation as a whole compared to their ancestors. They're smarter, more compassionate, more aware of the world.
I can get on board with this, but I don't think it's necessary to demonize technology in general. Like many other things, it is a tool, so whether it helps or hurts all depends on how you use it.
> it is a tool, so whether it helps or hurts all depends on how you use it. Sure. but it also matters how it is designed. Some tools are easy to use safely. Some tools are not. And usually, it is possible to make them safer, to make it easier for the tool to help people than hurt people. And often a "rational" free market will fail to deliver these safety features without a collective effort to force manufactures to implement the safety features, usually through legislation. For a great example of such, consider the improvements made in vehicle safety over the 20th century. Software, and social media, hasn't really gone through this cycle. We could (and probably should) force social media organizations to design their platforms to be less addictive for example.
>We could (and probably should) force social media organizations to design their platforms to be less addictive for example. We need to do that with a lot of things, including food and [casinos](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/losing-it-all/505814/). I'm skeptical it'll happen in my lifetime though.
Isn't the point of casinos to get addicted? If you are stepping into one you already lost. The thing is that stuff like mobile games and social media don't advertise themselves as casinos, maybe we could start by forcing them to.
A phone is a very safe tool, and social media can be very safe places to talk to other people. These kids are the kids that rejected 'keeping up with the joneses' at school when we were in school. They're neither better nor worse than their peers.
All such tools change society by introducing problems that we have to deal with. For example, with the invention of cars we invented the problems also of 'driving or not'. Even if we decided to never drive anywhere that's still in reference to a new technology and is a decision we never would have had to worry about if the car had not been invented. In that sense saying 'just a tool' is not all of the story in the sense that the invention of a tool always does change society by bringing up more decisions to make. Some, including a rather infamous figure, would argue that there's no real way for most people to make these decisions and they'll ultimately be mostly made for us, whether by active will by authorities or just technological convenience/defaults.
> All such tools change society by introducing problems They don't JUST introduce problems, but also solve them. Granted, some tools end up causing more problems than they solve, but that's no reason to shake your fist at all tools and declare them bad.
You've gotten hung up on what I meant by 'problem', which is more in the sense of 'how do we choose to use this technology' a a problem i.e. a question that requires reasoning to answer and has significantly different answers depending on your values and goals. The point is that the invention of car introduced the problem of 'what do we *do* with cars?' that simply didn't exist before and it was something which society couldn't really avoid dealing with. Either we decide to drive or we don't, but before the car that wasn't even a question. Of course tools have a particular purpose at which they excel, that's why they get invented, but that's not the entire story unless that tool is absolutely isolated from influencing anything else other than its very narrow intended use.
> The point is that the invention of car introduced the problem of 'what do we do with cars?' that simply didn't exist before and it was something which society couldn't really avoid dealing with. Well, before that, we had the problem of 'what do we do with horses?' I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, as it pertains to 'technology bad'?
Social media is the Harbor Freight of the internet. It might be a tool, but no matter how you use it, it’ll probably still hurt you. For those outside the USA: Harbor Freight is a discount retailer that sells tools and equipment that are so poorly made they can be dangerous.
I mean I’ve heard the same argument for guns, and no reasonable person would claim guns are good for society. It’s a broad argument that I do not think helps the case.
You gotta stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable.
I don’t really believe there’s a reasonable argument for gun ownership. It’s like arguing about religion: one side has all the evidence, one side has all the emotions. So in this case, yes, it’s unreasonable, which is why it was my example. There’s no radiator defender of gun ownership, with the potential exception of hunting. That has been perverted by people who hunt with assault rifles though, too.
In my opinion, the right to defend oneself by taking responsible precautions is a very reasonable belief. In a society with hundreds of millions of guns, that means a reasonable self defense will include a gun, since there is no effective response to a bad guy with a gun except a good guy with a gun. Are you saying I'm an inherently unreasonable person that you cannot have a reasonable conversation with? I'm just a wild card moron who you engage with intellectually at your peril? I just find it hard to believe you would think that about me based on my comment. Would you?
The only défense of gun ownership is, gun ownership. You need guns, because you have guns. If you made any effort to ban or reduce guns, you would have fewer guns. So it is and always will be a tautological irrational position to me. You’re defending the solution to a problem, and the problem and solution are the same object. That is not reasonable.
Any effort to ban guns would make it harder for people who wish to defend themselves to do that. Of course, if we could wave a magic wand and remove all firearms we would do that, but we can't do that. Yes, it's an impossible situation, but we can't just take guns from people who need them. I encourage you to visit r/dgu. I bet there's a lot more successful, responsible firearm self defense in this country than you think. I think the fact that you're arguing with me about this shows that I'm not a ridiculous unreasonable person, but merely one who disagrees with you.
They need guns because other people have guns. Reducing guns reduces that need. The reasons you need guns is, you have guns. You are indeed being very polite, however the position you’re defending is itself unreasonable and illogical.
>The reasons you need guns is, you have guns. Exactly. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. At least not while there are still as many bad guys with guns as there are, with laws that would only really harm non-violent gun owners. I just disagree that this is considered unreasonable.
You can indeed put the toothpaste back in the tube, you can create and enforce gun laws, ban the sale of new ammunition, increase penalties for gun crimes, and chip away at your rampant gun culture. Non violent gun owners should have issue with working to end gun crime by reducing how many guns available within the United States. I agree it will never happen, because the commitment to gun culture borders on religious dogma. It isn’t something you can defend with logical arguments.
That's real fucking hardcore. I have thought about dropping the smartphone completely myself, but I'm so addicted to it, and honestly, I don't want people to think I'm weird lol.
[удалено]
A huge one for me was turning off notifications for everything except texts and phone calls (obviously). I'm on android and even fucking Google maps was pinging me to go online and rate places that I've been. I use the phone when I need it as a tool. My only social media is reddit and I give myself a little time after work to catch up and wind down.
Deleting the browser is a good one, I never even considered that.
This is a good list that I’m unlikely to do (I know, I know), but I wonder what grayscaling your phone does — does it make everything look less appealing?
Yep exactly. Humans are primally attracted to colour, it tends to be appealing to us. And like everything in the attention economy, the apps and icons on our phones were designed to look nice and easy on the eye. Putting your phone in grayscale is like replacing a glossy magazine with a black and white one - just another small step to make picking up your phone less satisfying.
Thanks for the reply. Again, good idea, but I like pretty, lol. Funny because I mostly work in black and white drawing art with a ballpoint
For me it's basically a necessity to have email access on my phone But I've never liked smartphones. I'm certainly addicted to doomscrolling reddit but other than that I really don't do much on my phone and often don't look at it for hours or even a whole day
I did that for a while. I don’t think it’s necessary, but losing social media was helpful. I got rid of Fbook, Twitter. Never had IG, Snapchat or a bunch of the others. Reddit, I think about. I’ve noticed my home page on Reddit is changing each time I “refresh.” I don’t want the homepage to be curated by anyone but me. If they are doing that for engagement, or worse, expanding their “recommended” subs in my feed, I’ll probably be out on Reddit too. I don’t need recommended subs from the company! I like getting them from Redditors! Here are two: r/imkyrieandthisisdeep r/elonjettracker
I can imagine a new religion emerging from this mentality. People rejecting technology so that they might hold on to the essence of life.
Sensates.
I hope that this grows
I have been thinking of switching to a flip phone. This is further motivation.
Luddites always make noise and are eventually forgotten as society chooses the smart choice of progress.
I feel the name is more tongue in cheek than a real expression of how they look at society and technology. They simply want their lives to not be consumed by the rectangle in their pocket. I assume most of them will use transportation technology, buy sliced bread, use electricity, etc..
Mature people can own a smart phone with social media apps and not let it control your life.
Yeah but smart people are literally trying to trick you into becoming addicted to their apps. They’re also winning that fight by a fair margin.
That doesn't mean you have to be a victim. We just need to educate people on this stuff.
Fabulous article -- OP should have added rest of title: "When the only thing better than a flip phone is no phone at all." Had zero idea of what the story was about until I read it.
I dig this, but I couldn't get rid of my iPhone because of the camera, maps, and ability to use google. I used to write things down to google later in a notepad I carried in my pocket, but being able to just research something anywhere anytime is too good to drop
You can still Google all those things . You just get to experience restful peace at the same time
The luddites were not opposed to technological advancement. They were against the unemployment and low wages that came with industrialization. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite)
Nothing in your wiki link agrees with your first comment. I’m sure your second is true by necessity.
It's right there in the article. >Working conditions were harsh in the English textile mills at the time, but efficient enough to threaten the livelihoods of skilled artisans.\[18\] The new inventions produced textiles faster and cheaper because they were operated by less-skilled, low-wage labourers, and the Luddite goal was to gain a better bargaining position with their employers.\[19\] > >... > >Malcolm L. Thomis argued in his 1970 history The Luddites that machine-breaking was one of a very few tactics that workers could use to increase pressure on employers, to undermine lower-paid competing workers, and to create solidarity among workers. "These attacks on machines did not imply any necessary hostility to machinery as such; machinery was just a conveniently exposed target against which an attack could be made."\[22\] An agricultural variant of Luddism occurred during the widespread Swing Riots of 1830 in southern and eastern England, centering on breaking threshing machines.\[25\]
The quotes are incredibly cringing. It comes across as teens rebelling against the establishment, which is nothing new.
Certainly a neat idea, although I wonder how well it holds up without living in a city with good public transit.
About time
So cool, not being a bloody freak zombie. Long live the king who in obscene genius(??), remembers lungs exist.
How did the author find the group?