quarrk [he/him]
Most things are intelligible to most people, given the time and effort. Even notoriously brainy subjects like physics or math.
The range of intelligence between humans is not as large as those in power would like you to believe, because just like the chess community, it helps the ruling class legitimize a hierarchy.
Capitalist division of labor increases the intensity of this phenomenon. Specialization of labor increases with technological advance. The more specialized the laborer, the more dependent they become on a web of other specialists, and dependent more broadly on a particular technique of production.
Yet, as technology advances, lines of work “become antiquated before they can ossify.”[1] The means of subsistence for the worker, ie their special expertise and education, is constantly being undermined by the incessant advancement of technology as capitalists chase after additional profits (relative surplus value).
On the one hand, specialization requires significant investment on the part of the worker; they identify with it as an essential aspect of their self. On the other hand, specialization becomes synonymous with precarity: the more specialized one’s expertise, the less easily it can be adapted to new techniques of production.
The result is that workers strongly identify with their skill sets, and find it in their interest to make their expertise as scarce and inaccessible as possible, or at least perceived as such.
The same thing happened with the guild system during feudal times, with the rise of the bourgeoisie which led to reactions by the guilds to artificially restrict knowledge of their trades (consequently restricting production of trade goods) except through official mentorship programs. Modern universities have their origin in the guild system. “Scholastic” guilds worked to advance knowledge as such, analogously to the trade guilds which refined knowledge of their respective trades.
For myself, I’ve been happier to drop this desire to identify with a hobby or career. I’m just a person who has certain skill sets like anyone else. I’m more in touch with my humanity now than I was when I was in school desperately trying to earn the respect to be called a [area of study]ist.
1 ↩︎
Sounds like the root issue is that you wish that people saw your autism as something you are, and that it’s not something you have.
As a neurotypical person (not “a neurotypical”) I would struggle to call someone “an autist” because that term is often used by chuds trying to marginalize autistic people.
I would absolutely be fine with saying someone is autistic but in my opinion there isn’t any meaningful semantic difference if I said they are an autistic person. Do you agree?
Someone who uses the phrase “person with autism” is just trying to emphasize personhood. I don’t think they are necessarily trying to imply that autism is separable from the person, although I guess that could be the case depending on context.
I think “black person” is more or less equivalent to “autistic person/person with autism”.
CW racist language
What OP is asking would be closer to calling someone “a black”, which sounds offensive for obvious reasons - it reduces personhood and emphasizes their difference, one that historically was used to discriminate
Also, the ores it’s found in are usually more concentrated than uranium and don’t form pockets of dangerous radon gas, so it’s safer, cheaper and more efficient to mine.
Right now the US is mining/transporting uranium in the Grand fucking Canyon. Besides risking a natural wonder of the world with rich cultural and scientific history, it also risks the native lands of the Havasupai tribe which would be permanently displaced if an environmental disaster occurred there.
This is an enjoyable read, thanks for sharing. Like cozying up for story time from grandpa.
I like this part
“Ach, what a glorious time we had on that journey to Brussels! Sometimes Karl and Engels would talk seriously about the great cause, and I just listened and kept my mouth shut while my ears were wide open. At other times they would throw off their seriousness as a man throws off a coat, and then they would tell stories and sing songs, and of course I joined in. People say—people that never knew the real Karl—that he was gloomy and sad, that he couldn’t smile. I suppose that is because they never saw the simple Karl that I knew and loved, but only Marx, the great leader and teacher, with a thousand heavy problems burdening his mind. But the Marx that I knew—my friend Karl—was human, boy, very human. He could sing a song, tell a good story, and enjoy a joke, even at his own expense.”
I dont fully agree because I think TikTok can be enriching in a way no other social media is if you get on the right side of it. I hear actually new view points, people who live in Gaza for example, and a lot of open communists. That doesn’t really happen even on similar platforms like YouTube Shorts. TikTok is much less filtered experience and therefore more authentic, if you are consistent about liking/saving content.
It absolutely can be brainrot though, but it’s a blissful brainrot
Exhibit A, surprise Žižek https://www.tiktok.com/@jrdnstn/video/7361878519653109035
If you aren’t on Cute Animal-tok then you’re doing it wrong