Some ppl are destined to not have any of those three so that others can have it all. Maybe you're ok with that
-
-
Replying to @sulphuroxide
@sulpuroxide everything is positional except small-group belonging
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing yes i would include even small groups as group-identity is predicated on the exclusion of others.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sulphuroxide
@sulpuroxide and yet, those excluded can still form their own groups - problem mostly territorial fighting I guess
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing ex: ghettoization, cultural destitution of the poor, prevents them from having a community and fighting city hall1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sulphuroxide
@sulpuroxide empirically, it doesn't seem that slurping everyone into a mass fake economic stream/culture works at all - boundaries better
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing i think preventing un-unified masses collective agency allows economic enslavement is the point. Distract them with pokemon1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sulphuroxide
@sulpuroxide hmm I think preventing exclusive groups from forming is a great way to limit the agency of "the masses" (mass agency is fake)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing I think successful groups will be more exclusive cuz barriers to entry help them solidify agency1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
@sulpuroxide absolutely!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.