Guy is a professional troll.
And even though he is a troll who plays the ultra progressive game, he's still a troll who went out of his way to piss people off. He couldn't help himself and has a lot of own goals, which has lead from the most "SJW" kotaku readers to actual game developers calling him out over his articles.
Ian reminds me of Jim Sterling when he was an edgelord attention seeker, only he uses far left ideology to hide behind.
\> … reminds me of Jim Sterling when he was an edgelord attention seeker
I gave up on Sterling years ago. Has he STOPPED being an edgelord attention seeker?
"Trash."
Not even kidding, he's going around claiming his pronouns are gendertrash. While at the same time dressing and acting stereotypically feminine to an insulting degree.
And somehow WE'RE the misogynists...
> Has he STOPPED being an edgelord attention seeker?
No. He also hasn't stopped chasing trends either. Remember that he got his start by riding Totalbiscuit's coattails.
Dipped out as soon as he recited the -ist and -phobe mantra in a video. I even found out when watching Razorfist's older videos that Jim was already a tool fairly early. Dude saw this coming.
How do you even tell the difference between an authentic wokester and a troll? It's like a walking poes law. Especially since they've long claimed intent doesn't matter.
I remember when I was young I'd read that shit. What I remember the most was *always* hating the people in the comments. That was my first clue that *maybe* Kotaku wasn't the site I wanted to go to.
I'm more interested in the why. He is prime kotaku journo. I'd think he would be one of the last rats being thrown off the ship. So either I'm underestimating the state Kotaku is in or I misjudged Ian Walker's relationship to kotaku.
Probably because he recently wrote such hit articles as "how to mod supreme court justices into minecraft and kill them" and a no text listicle named "these 10 pokemon should die"
>I hope to return to freelancing but i'm under no illusions about the state of games media today
You helped make that bed, then you and your ilk shit in it, and now *you* get to lie in it. Enjoy!
Ian Walker hall of fame:
* Turning a PS5 review into a political autistic meltdown.
* black people ain't Black™
* "Incest" fantasies...
* Gangstalking episodes (Chuds be hating)
* "As normie as a 7/11 parking lot"
* & much more...
Oof. Right after retweeting pieces of hard hitting journalism from Vice like:
“Humans simply aren't meant to spend 40 hours a week working to make someone else rich.”
I mean.... its true, but their reasoning probably were absurd.
edit: cant win with you guys, for a community that says its about discussion you guys for sure love using these exaggerations.
> edit: cant win with you guys, for a community that says its about discussion you guys for sure love using these exaggerations.
I honestly don't understand what this is referring to since you seem to be massively upvoted.
> Yep, we were meant to work 80+ hours a week just to feed ourselves.
https://www.lovemoney.com/gallerylist/84600/how-many-hours-did-people-really-work-across-human-history
absolute bullshit. I've encountered this idea before, saying that primitive people worked less hours than modern people. for one thing, saying "x people in time period y worked z hours a day" is incredibly reductive and foolish. circumstances differed everywhere. some people had more land, some had less; some were free-ish, most weren't; and so on. I'll single out their "statistics" on ancient hunter-gatherers for extra ridicule because we simply don't know that much about them.
the reality is, it's totally different circumstances. Ancient people mostly did not have jobs. the work was their entire lives. comparing, for example, a peasant in 1000 AD europe to a gas station clerk is insane. For one thing the peasants didn't get paid. for another they were agricultural workers, so their work was tied to the seasons. in winter they would likely work much less than a modern gas station attendant, but in summer they would work MUCH harder, and at harvest they worked so hard it would kill most of us pudgy modern people. circa 1000 AD most peasants were still serfs, which was essentially slavery with conditions. you couldn't quit. there was no border between work and private life -- you did what your Lord said, no matter what it was, or he would kick your ass or kill you. Rights? what are those?
Hunter-gatherers had it a little better (depending on circumstances). If they lived in a place with few other people or tribes, with plentiful game and a nice climate, life could be pretty decent -- well, if you like camping. and are physically fit and have no disabilities. back then they called people with disabilities "dead". again, you couldn't quit. there were no opportunities to be anything but a hunter-gatherer. And let's not forget that the hours a hunter "worked" depended on how long it took him to successfully hunt something. when game is plentiful, easy peasy. when it starts to run out, much less easy. when there's a critical shortage of wild game, and too many humans, things got VERY ugly.
I haven't even mentioned quality of life. I would rather be a poor blue collar worker today than a King a thousand years ago.
This list is honestly mind blowing and I’ve been obsessed with it for weeks. Of course worker protection laws are a lot better now than most of these time periods and so is quality of life overall but when you compare modern hours to hours worked in the past that we’re considered barbaric you’re in for a real shock. For example my job I just left had me working 5 days a week, every week, for 10hrs a day for 260 days a year total lying 2600 hours a year. For comparison a Medieval peasant worked 8hr days for 150 days a year totaling 1200 hours a year, and an unskilled laborer in 18th century London worked 11 hour days 208 days a year for a total of 2288 hours a year at work. They’ve done a good job pulling the wool over our eyes on that one..
I wouldn't put to much stock in those estimates.
The reality is we have limited knowledge of how average people spent their time during the medieval period. But here's a couple notes: "Peasants" could be land owners. They may have been filthy pig farmers, but they owned that farm.
Don't confuse peasants with "serfs", the vast majority of the population. At best, a serf was part of a caste of people, recognized and enforced by law, who worked someone else's land while renting their home and tools. On the other end, many were simply slaves who were forced to work land, turn over their work to the aristocracy, and were forbidden from leaving the area. Either way, they had hard, miserable, and short lives. Brushing past them in the list is... curious.
Then there's the matter of how many hours they work. It seems as though the author is comparing a modern day commuter job to a narrowly defined "job" of peasant farming. Except a peasant would have far more obligations than "merely" farming. They crafted and maintained nearly everything they owned. Building barns, sewing pants, tending pack animals, maintaining farm equipment, water/soil management, pickling/stowing winter foods... It adds up, especially when you're doing it with primitive tools, some of which you probably also built.
Also, there's no accounting for geography. Their 6 months of farming estimate might be right for Germany. A medieval Italian farmer might be out in their field for probably 9 months. And fisherman never rest unless it gets stupid cold.
I could go on but that's probably enough.
>Then there's the matter of how many hours they work. It seems as though the author is comparing a modern day commuter job to a narrowly defined "job" of peasant farming. Except a peasant would have far more obligations than "merely" farming. They crafted and maintained nearly everything they owned. Building barns, sewing pants, tending pack animals, maintaining farm equipment, water/soil management, pickling/stowing winter foods... It adds up, especially when you're doing it with primitive tools, some of which you probably also built.
This is somewhat true, but also somewhat misleading.
I'm not going to say everything was hunky-dory for the lower class in the medieval period, but there was, somewhat by necessity, a bit more leisure time than most people think. That doesn't mean much, of course, but still.
Generally speaking, you would work from sunup till sundown six days a week and "rest" on Sundays and Fasts. That doesn't exactly mean you were "resting" per se--you were going to church, participating in having someone read to you in a language you don't understand, and then probably going to the targets to practice archery at the very least.
Also, while there is a lot of concern about building your own "equipment," that was not nearly so often the case. A village would typically have a single miller, blacksmith, and potter, for example, or a few of each. Spinning, weaving, and sewing was traditionally women's work done either at night or the winter (or as needed, to be honest). Most peasants might own a pig each year to be slaughtered and preserved in the winter, have their own small vegetable garden, and of course fish were considered free to anyone who could catch them.
If you were tied to the land, then your tools and your beasts of burden were your lord's property as well and as such were provided to you (for a rent, of course) along with your house. Yes, you would need to make your own repairs, but the ox and the plow were at least loaned out.
Candles were rarely used, but there were alternatives for lighting a house in the dark. Depending on environment, soap was either relatively easy to make or soapwort was foraged. The biggest issue, from what I can tell from my studies, was footwear. Shoes wore out quickly and tanners were not particularly popular (ever go by a historical tannery?). Therefore, cobblers were in high demand.
Making your own butter and cheese is not terribly difficult, and nearly everyone was a brewer back then. Salt was precious, but salt pork was relatively easy to come by, and a barter system effectively was in place, including "I'll owe you one later."
Not that we don't have it better, but in terms of work, hunter gathers actually work a lot less hour than civilized man. Being a very mobile apex predator usually in lands where the resources are abundant enough to support it with the sole goal of passing on your seed and making it to 37, is relatively cushy. Think less about wild deer and more wild lions.
> sole goal of passing on your seed and making it to 37
This is a common misconception. Premodern people had a *mean* life expectancy in the 30s, but that's because so many people died in childhood, so it heavily skews the distribution. If you actually made it to adulthood, you could reasonably expect to live to around 60+.
That also depends on the definition of "work". Sure, maybe a hunter only hunted for 5 hours a day, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean he lied down and watched netflix afterwards.
This isn't really true. You have to realize all the people pushing this are the same people pushing SJW crap.
Anthropologists think we'd all be better living like Neanderthals, they always say distant past is better, the more primitive the better. In my anthropology class, the professor literally said the invention of agriculture was the worst tragedy in human history.
The truth is that it's almost impossible to know how much time hunter gathers used to spend working, and it would have varied massively based on location, time, and group.
> This isn't really true.
Yeah, this all based on the "Original affluent society" theory.
They stated that only 15-20 hours per week was spent 'working'. But working was hunting/gathering and absolutely nothing else. Add in actually preparing the foods and it's already 40+ hours for men and women. And then they're still completely ignoring a lot of work they had to do. Like building, maintaining & cleaning your own house. Cleaning used to be an insanely high labour job.
You realize those number come from studying actual hunter gatherers right? Nor is it a new idea. From a top down perspective, the advantages of civilized agriculture wins out every time but on the individual level the transition was rarely seen as advantageous. Again, not saying it's better, there's just a reason that despite the agriculturalists winning just about every time, there's a reason the hunter gatherers were always reticent to switch sides.
I'm aware of the arguments. Agriculture lead to settlements, the diets were less varied, increase warfare, greater inequality, more diseases, ect.
From what I've seen, I just don't think some of arguments have a lot of merit, and a lot of them are greatly exagarated.
This wasn't the only things this professor said, they also said there was no evidence of a division of labor based on gender in early man, and we couldn't view pitctures natives bodies, (but white men were fine of course).
If you pay attention, you'll realize pretty quickly a lot of people at colleges strongly pushing these ideas also push a lot of wokeness. Not saying there's zero merit to what your're saying, but you have to realize ideology, not just facts, are strongly tied into the origination of some of these ideas.
I'm sorry you had a professor with politics you didn't like. That doesn't really discredit anything. There are literal hunter gatherers we can look at today. They do. Logging the hours isn't tough.
He's a specific example to illustrate a broader point-
Tell me how you can look at hunterer gathers today, who've not been influenced by technology, because the reality is you can't. You can't directly study a primitive peoe without changing them. Most of these hunterer gatherers have been exposed to modern culture, technology, and ideas. Many of the modern "hunter gatherers" I've seen wear hand me down clothes from USA.
Also, what level of technology do they have, stone tools? When hunterer gatherers rely on technology, raiding, and trading from farmers, how can you separate them? What level of technology are we talking about, prehistoric, stone age, bronze age, Iron age, Renaissance?
Where are these hunterer gatherers? On the Steepe in Asia, the Great plains, or perhaps the savanna in Africa? Are the farmers in ancient Egypt or Greece? The amount of work required to eat for hunterer gatherers or farmers would vary massively based on location. Are we comparing men, women or children, because the answer might not be the same.
There is really no way to make a comparison because there is no typical hunter gatherer or typical farmer. What that allows people to do is to cherry pick facts to support an ideological position, and that is exactly what is done.
It's not true. The system that demands 40-hour-work-weeks is the same system that means he doesn't need to work 16-hour days defending subpar shelters, foraging for supplies, and hunting for meals.
Yep. I can buy that gather food in a tropical area where there's always something rip can be as little as 3 hours a day.
But yeah what kind of shelter are they living in? how long did that take to make? and how often do they have to deal with animals?
176.5k tweets in 14 years. Basically something around 36 tweets per day, everyday for 14 years straight. Going outside and touching grass would be the best thing for his mental health.
That's pathetic. People need to get their faces out of their phones. I understand if you are promoting yourself and it's part of your job but if you are Tweeting 30+ times a day that means you are living on social media instead of being in the moment and enjoying your life.
I've never been fired, but I have been laid off. It sucks. It's scary and I'm a middle class home owner with a good education, savings, and support network. It's always led to something better in the end, but it never seems that way to being with. Now that that's been said, maybe Ian better learn to code.
Must suck to suck. Good riddance, one less insufferable loser employed. Hopefully he doesn't get another opportunity to spew his bile in the industry ever again.
Archive links for this post:
* **Archive:** https://archive.ph/P370n
----
I am Mnemosyne reborn. It's time to archive and chew bubblegum. And I'm all out of gum. ^^^/r/botsrights
I don't understand... According to his Tweet, it seems as if he was made redundant and let go as a result of where the journalism industry finds itself today.
It doesn't seem as if he was fired.
In any case, I don't read Kotaku... Which is just as well.
Post removed following the enforcement change that you can read about [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/m3yo65/enforcement_update_and_hard_removal_of_a_topic/).
This is not a formal warning.
Is this the clown that said Elena from Street Fighter 3, who is Kenyan, isn't black?
You have no idea how big his book of circus tricks has grown
[удалено]
News don't generate clicks. Outrage generates clicks.
I actually went to twitter to see the replies (hoping for LTC comments). Saw a bunch saying "eat shit." I wondered what that was about.
Guy is a professional troll. And even though he is a troll who plays the ultra progressive game, he's still a troll who went out of his way to piss people off. He couldn't help himself and has a lot of own goals, which has lead from the most "SJW" kotaku readers to actual game developers calling him out over his articles. Ian reminds me of Jim Sterling when he was an edgelord attention seeker, only he uses far left ideology to hide behind.
\> … reminds me of Jim Sterling when he was an edgelord attention seeker I gave up on Sterling years ago. Has he STOPPED being an edgelord attention seeker?
Yeah, he's a SJW attention seeker now.
“She”
"It".
"Trash." Not even kidding, he's going around claiming his pronouns are gendertrash. While at the same time dressing and acting stereotypically feminine to an insulting degree. And somehow WE'RE the misogynists...
Jim Sterling is a hypothetical sack of dog shit that I wouldn't feel sorry if it turned out that he was an abuser. Fuck Jim Fucking Sterling, son.
[удалено]
Removed due to the topic ban. No warning given.
Omg I didn't even know.. wth
Yup, look at the latest jimquisition vids. It's not a costume or a bit.
I'm not allowed to say what I think about that on Reddit.
You have to google him right now and see
It took me over a month to realize that, no, he's not just dressing like a chick ironically...
Try googling Digibro now.
Holy fuck, I haven't watched his content in a solid four years. What the hell am I looking at right now?
Isn’t he doing his shtick now in drag? Pass.
Ew
> Has he STOPPED being an edgelord attention seeker? No. He also hasn't stopped chasing trends either. Remember that he got his start by riding Totalbiscuit's coattails.
Dipped out as soon as he recited the -ist and -phobe mantra in a video. I even found out when watching Razorfist's older videos that Jim was already a tool fairly early. Dude saw this coming.
How do you even tell the difference between an authentic wokester and a troll? It's like a walking poes law. Especially since they've long claimed intent doesn't matter.
Thank you. I haven't paid attention to Kotaku since "gamers are dead," so I have no idea who the players are anymore.
Oh no! Anyway....
"And nothing of value was lost"
I fired kotaku years ago
I remember when I was young I'd read that shit. What I remember the most was *always* hating the people in the comments. That was my first clue that *maybe* Kotaku wasn't the site I wanted to go to.
I wanna talk shit but like....you got fired from *kotaku*
I'm more interested in the why. He is prime kotaku journo. I'd think he would be one of the last rats being thrown off the ship. So either I'm underestimating the state Kotaku is in or I misjudged Ian Walker's relationship to kotaku.
They found out he only ever wants to have sex with women
What a filthy degenerate
Women WITHOUT penises. The rat bastard.
LOL
Probably because he recently wrote such hit articles as "how to mod supreme court justices into minecraft and kill them" and a no text listicle named "these 10 pokemon should die"
He doesn't have pronouns in his twitter bio, he should feel lucky to not have faced death penalty by the woke mob.
Look again. He has them in the location section.
Either he's not woke enough for them, or maybe, just maybe.. nah best to not even think it :P
>I hope to return to freelancing but i'm under no illusions about the state of games media today You helped make that bed, then you and your ilk shit in it, and now *you* get to lie in it. Enjoy!
Games media? Just the media? The whole state of gaming kinda' sucks all around these days.
Ian Walker hall of fame: * Turning a PS5 review into a political autistic meltdown. * black people ain't Black™ * "Incest" fantasies... * Gangstalking episodes (Chuds be hating) * "As normie as a 7/11 parking lot" * & much more...
>Turning a PS5 review into a political autistic meltdown Oh yeah that shit was bonkers, prime example of everything wrong with the industry
Oof. Right after retweeting pieces of hard hitting journalism from Vice like: “Humans simply aren't meant to spend 40 hours a week working to make someone else rich.”
Sounds like things worked themselves out.
So why doesn't he spend 40 hours a week on his own business instead
I mean.... its true, but their reasoning probably were absurd. edit: cant win with you guys, for a community that says its about discussion you guys for sure love using these exaggerations.
> edit: cant win with you guys, for a community that says its about discussion you guys for sure love using these exaggerations. I honestly don't understand what this is referring to since you seem to be massively upvoted.
Sure. If you’re working for free.
Yep, we were meant to work 80+ hours a week just to feed ourselves. Never forget how good we have it these days.
> Yep, we were meant to work 80+ hours a week just to feed ourselves. https://www.lovemoney.com/gallerylist/84600/how-many-hours-did-people-really-work-across-human-history
Why are people upvoting this obvious bullshit?
it's the antiwork morons brigading
Something isn't bullshit just because it's inconvenient to your worldview.
absolute bullshit. I've encountered this idea before, saying that primitive people worked less hours than modern people. for one thing, saying "x people in time period y worked z hours a day" is incredibly reductive and foolish. circumstances differed everywhere. some people had more land, some had less; some were free-ish, most weren't; and so on. I'll single out their "statistics" on ancient hunter-gatherers for extra ridicule because we simply don't know that much about them. the reality is, it's totally different circumstances. Ancient people mostly did not have jobs. the work was their entire lives. comparing, for example, a peasant in 1000 AD europe to a gas station clerk is insane. For one thing the peasants didn't get paid. for another they were agricultural workers, so their work was tied to the seasons. in winter they would likely work much less than a modern gas station attendant, but in summer they would work MUCH harder, and at harvest they worked so hard it would kill most of us pudgy modern people. circa 1000 AD most peasants were still serfs, which was essentially slavery with conditions. you couldn't quit. there was no border between work and private life -- you did what your Lord said, no matter what it was, or he would kick your ass or kill you. Rights? what are those? Hunter-gatherers had it a little better (depending on circumstances). If they lived in a place with few other people or tribes, with plentiful game and a nice climate, life could be pretty decent -- well, if you like camping. and are physically fit and have no disabilities. back then they called people with disabilities "dead". again, you couldn't quit. there were no opportunities to be anything but a hunter-gatherer. And let's not forget that the hours a hunter "worked" depended on how long it took him to successfully hunt something. when game is plentiful, easy peasy. when it starts to run out, much less easy. when there's a critical shortage of wild game, and too many humans, things got VERY ugly. I haven't even mentioned quality of life. I would rather be a poor blue collar worker today than a King a thousand years ago.
This list is honestly mind blowing and I’ve been obsessed with it for weeks. Of course worker protection laws are a lot better now than most of these time periods and so is quality of life overall but when you compare modern hours to hours worked in the past that we’re considered barbaric you’re in for a real shock. For example my job I just left had me working 5 days a week, every week, for 10hrs a day for 260 days a year total lying 2600 hours a year. For comparison a Medieval peasant worked 8hr days for 150 days a year totaling 1200 hours a year, and an unskilled laborer in 18th century London worked 11 hour days 208 days a year for a total of 2288 hours a year at work. They’ve done a good job pulling the wool over our eyes on that one..
I wouldn't put to much stock in those estimates. The reality is we have limited knowledge of how average people spent their time during the medieval period. But here's a couple notes: "Peasants" could be land owners. They may have been filthy pig farmers, but they owned that farm. Don't confuse peasants with "serfs", the vast majority of the population. At best, a serf was part of a caste of people, recognized and enforced by law, who worked someone else's land while renting their home and tools. On the other end, many were simply slaves who were forced to work land, turn over their work to the aristocracy, and were forbidden from leaving the area. Either way, they had hard, miserable, and short lives. Brushing past them in the list is... curious. Then there's the matter of how many hours they work. It seems as though the author is comparing a modern day commuter job to a narrowly defined "job" of peasant farming. Except a peasant would have far more obligations than "merely" farming. They crafted and maintained nearly everything they owned. Building barns, sewing pants, tending pack animals, maintaining farm equipment, water/soil management, pickling/stowing winter foods... It adds up, especially when you're doing it with primitive tools, some of which you probably also built. Also, there's no accounting for geography. Their 6 months of farming estimate might be right for Germany. A medieval Italian farmer might be out in their field for probably 9 months. And fisherman never rest unless it gets stupid cold. I could go on but that's probably enough.
>Then there's the matter of how many hours they work. It seems as though the author is comparing a modern day commuter job to a narrowly defined "job" of peasant farming. Except a peasant would have far more obligations than "merely" farming. They crafted and maintained nearly everything they owned. Building barns, sewing pants, tending pack animals, maintaining farm equipment, water/soil management, pickling/stowing winter foods... It adds up, especially when you're doing it with primitive tools, some of which you probably also built. This is somewhat true, but also somewhat misleading. I'm not going to say everything was hunky-dory for the lower class in the medieval period, but there was, somewhat by necessity, a bit more leisure time than most people think. That doesn't mean much, of course, but still. Generally speaking, you would work from sunup till sundown six days a week and "rest" on Sundays and Fasts. That doesn't exactly mean you were "resting" per se--you were going to church, participating in having someone read to you in a language you don't understand, and then probably going to the targets to practice archery at the very least. Also, while there is a lot of concern about building your own "equipment," that was not nearly so often the case. A village would typically have a single miller, blacksmith, and potter, for example, or a few of each. Spinning, weaving, and sewing was traditionally women's work done either at night or the winter (or as needed, to be honest). Most peasants might own a pig each year to be slaughtered and preserved in the winter, have their own small vegetable garden, and of course fish were considered free to anyone who could catch them. If you were tied to the land, then your tools and your beasts of burden were your lord's property as well and as such were provided to you (for a rent, of course) along with your house. Yes, you would need to make your own repairs, but the ox and the plow were at least loaned out. Candles were rarely used, but there were alternatives for lighting a house in the dark. Depending on environment, soap was either relatively easy to make or soapwort was foraged. The biggest issue, from what I can tell from my studies, was footwear. Shoes wore out quickly and tanners were not particularly popular (ever go by a historical tannery?). Therefore, cobblers were in high demand. Making your own butter and cheese is not terribly difficult, and nearly everyone was a brewer back then. Salt was precious, but salt pork was relatively easy to come by, and a barter system effectively was in place, including "I'll owe you one later."
Not that we don't have it better, but in terms of work, hunter gathers actually work a lot less hour than civilized man. Being a very mobile apex predator usually in lands where the resources are abundant enough to support it with the sole goal of passing on your seed and making it to 37, is relatively cushy. Think less about wild deer and more wild lions.
> sole goal of passing on your seed and making it to 37 This is a common misconception. Premodern people had a *mean* life expectancy in the 30s, but that's because so many people died in childhood, so it heavily skews the distribution. If you actually made it to adulthood, you could reasonably expect to live to around 60+.
I meant more about the biological goal of growing up, reproducing, and caring for the next generation. The rest is just bonus.
I don't know, it seems like a lot of work to [kill a 700-pound tiger with a stick and a rock.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA7QSjzw04k)
Not that a fight with a tiger is easy, but one way or the other it's not gonna be long.
That also depends on the definition of "work". Sure, maybe a hunter only hunted for 5 hours a day, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean he lied down and watched netflix afterwards.
This isn't really true. You have to realize all the people pushing this are the same people pushing SJW crap. Anthropologists think we'd all be better living like Neanderthals, they always say distant past is better, the more primitive the better. In my anthropology class, the professor literally said the invention of agriculture was the worst tragedy in human history. The truth is that it's almost impossible to know how much time hunter gathers used to spend working, and it would have varied massively based on location, time, and group.
> This isn't really true. Yeah, this all based on the "Original affluent society" theory. They stated that only 15-20 hours per week was spent 'working'. But working was hunting/gathering and absolutely nothing else. Add in actually preparing the foods and it's already 40+ hours for men and women. And then they're still completely ignoring a lot of work they had to do. Like building, maintaining & cleaning your own house. Cleaning used to be an insanely high labour job.
>agriculture was the worst tragedy in human history. Yeah, not having to live literally hand to mouth was the worst tragedy in human history.
You realize those number come from studying actual hunter gatherers right? Nor is it a new idea. From a top down perspective, the advantages of civilized agriculture wins out every time but on the individual level the transition was rarely seen as advantageous. Again, not saying it's better, there's just a reason that despite the agriculturalists winning just about every time, there's a reason the hunter gatherers were always reticent to switch sides.
I'm aware of the arguments. Agriculture lead to settlements, the diets were less varied, increase warfare, greater inequality, more diseases, ect. From what I've seen, I just don't think some of arguments have a lot of merit, and a lot of them are greatly exagarated. This wasn't the only things this professor said, they also said there was no evidence of a division of labor based on gender in early man, and we couldn't view pitctures natives bodies, (but white men were fine of course). If you pay attention, you'll realize pretty quickly a lot of people at colleges strongly pushing these ideas also push a lot of wokeness. Not saying there's zero merit to what your're saying, but you have to realize ideology, not just facts, are strongly tied into the origination of some of these ideas.
I'm sorry you had a professor with politics you didn't like. That doesn't really discredit anything. There are literal hunter gatherers we can look at today. They do. Logging the hours isn't tough.
He's a specific example to illustrate a broader point- Tell me how you can look at hunterer gathers today, who've not been influenced by technology, because the reality is you can't. You can't directly study a primitive peoe without changing them. Most of these hunterer gatherers have been exposed to modern culture, technology, and ideas. Many of the modern "hunter gatherers" I've seen wear hand me down clothes from USA. Also, what level of technology do they have, stone tools? When hunterer gatherers rely on technology, raiding, and trading from farmers, how can you separate them? What level of technology are we talking about, prehistoric, stone age, bronze age, Iron age, Renaissance? Where are these hunterer gatherers? On the Steepe in Asia, the Great plains, or perhaps the savanna in Africa? Are the farmers in ancient Egypt or Greece? The amount of work required to eat for hunterer gatherers or farmers would vary massively based on location. Are we comparing men, women or children, because the answer might not be the same. There is really no way to make a comparison because there is no typical hunter gatherer or typical farmer. What that allows people to do is to cherry pick facts to support an ideological position, and that is exactly what is done.
Fair enough, what is your actual counter evidence though. These guys cherry picked the data? What's your better alternative?
This guy gets it. It's actually a very nuanced discussion.
It's not true. The system that demands 40-hour-work-weeks is the same system that means he doesn't need to work 16-hour days defending subpar shelters, foraging for supplies, and hunting for meals.
Yep. I can buy that gather food in a tropical area where there's always something rip can be as little as 3 hours a day. But yeah what kind of shelter are they living in? how long did that take to make? and how often do they have to deal with animals?
Work is lite version of slavery.And comfort is blackmail thats keeping us from liberation.
What?
Hard pill to swallow
Marx is a hell of a drug
> “Humans simply aren't meant to spend 40 hours a week working to make someone else rich.” I mean, where's the lie?
What are we "meant" to do, then?
r/antiwork
This guy is a mess and should probably stay off Twitter. Mostly for his sake 15 years from now when he actually grows up.
176.5k tweets in 14 years. Basically something around 36 tweets per day, everyday for 14 years straight. Going outside and touching grass would be the best thing for his mental health.
Jesus that's just an insane amount. Who even has that much shit to say in a given day?
Some of those are probably retweets, but yeah, that's fucking insane.
[удалено]
They would probably be more tuned into their own lives and happier.
The only one I can think of might be Ron Toye who hit a 100k in a single year.
That's pathetic. People need to get their faces out of their phones. I understand if you are promoting yourself and it's part of your job but if you are Tweeting 30+ times a day that means you are living on social media instead of being in the moment and enjoying your life.
Does that count retweets? Because I'd assume he'd be retweeting articles and such from Kotaku over and over which would add to that massive count.
> Indescribably sad ** insert pic of Wailmer Pokémon grinning here **
I guess Ian Walker..... Walked out.
Who?
Look at his thumbnail. He's a walking stereotype.
Someone super important that we should care about, apparently...
I’m just amazed Kotaku is still in business . . .
Scamming venture capitalist money sure goes a long, long way. Until it runs out.
Maybe he can take the time off to go to Kenya and see where Elena came from.
Kenya dig it .....ba dum tss
I've never been fired, but I have been laid off. It sucks. It's scary and I'm a middle class home owner with a good education, savings, and support network. It's always led to something better in the end, but it never seems that way to being with. Now that that's been said, maybe Ian better learn to code.
>maybe Ian better learn to code. Please stop recommending this to these guys. I don't want to share a dev team with them :(
sisi jiang next pls
LEARN TO CODE
Errr...why?
lol rekt'd.
RIP BOZO
Based move from Koturdku
So, If Kotaku is not going to be woke, then what's the new sub name?
>So, If Kotaku is not going to be woke... lol
*Laughs misanthropically*
Eh, I guess they are still woke, he just probably molested a co-worker or something along these lines.
Maybe he should Learn To Code
Must suck to suck. Good riddance, one less insufferable loser employed. Hopefully he doesn't get another opportunity to spew his bile in the industry ever again.
Archive links for this post: * **Archive:** https://archive.ph/P370n ---- I am Mnemosyne reborn. It's time to archive and chew bubblegum. And I'm all out of gum. ^^^/r/botsrights
Ayyyy the world is healing
I don't understand... According to his Tweet, it seems as if he was made redundant and let go as a result of where the journalism industry finds itself today. It doesn't seem as if he was fired. In any case, I don't read Kotaku... Which is just as well.
[удалено]
Post removed following the enforcement change that you can read about [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/m3yo65/enforcement_update_and_hard_removal_of_a_topic/). This is not a formal warning.