Or new (or old) phone so the screen selection is difficult/not working.
I recall I had an iPad that a kid smashed the screen of and it never quoted again.
1 Like
As the FPP notes, the Luddites weren’t against the technology itself.
There seems to be some inconsistency in this argument though. While everyone seems to agree that their principal gripe was against the mill-owners undercutting them, some people are arguing that they had no gripe with the technology if they had control of it and others that they felt the machine-made goods were inferior to their hand made goods and therefore wouldn’t be interested in the technology at all.
The mill owners the Luddites opposed didn’t invent the various frames, any more than Elon Musk invented the Tesla EV or SpaceX rockets.
Only in the literal sense because he was dead twenty years when the Luddite moment as we know it started in 1811, but Richard Arkwright (who developed much of the technology in question) was no idle heir to a emerald mining fortune like Musk but was a son of a tailor who used his inventions in his own factories.
Seriously… that’s a totally factual statement, no “literally” about it…
The REALITY is that these factory owners were seeking to undercut the workers, did so with this technology, and then produced a less quality product. Those are the facts at hand. You can try to dispute, but you’ll just be wrong. 
Pretending like there are only upsides to changing technology is ahistorical and a danger to us thinking through possible consequences of adopting new technologies today. These changes had negative consequences - everything from creating exploitative labor relations to creating environmental disasters. Ignore that at ALL our peril.
5 Likes
Sure, if you care about facts. But in the metaphorical sense, didn’t the spirit of the inventor live on in the factory owners? And didn’t that justify them ruining lives for their own profits? I mean, we all know something must – the market is never wrong.
3 Likes
All hail the creation of wealth!!! Teh ONLY moral good!!! /s
3 Likes
I’m sure there was a combination of both attitudes toward the technology. The Luddite movement overall, though, was not an inherently anti-technology one (despite the modern misuse of the term). Instead, it was a labour movement opposed to exploitative mill owners who used the technology to replace skilled, decently paid workers with unskilled adult and child ones to produce lower-quality and less durable textiles. Luddism viewed in its true sense, it seems strange to see anyone bending over backwards to try and find silver linings in the behaviour of the mill bosses.
And let’s be clear: pushing this narrative is exactly what creeps like Andreesen are doing right now with AI, and what they’ve been doing with cryptocurrencies and social media platforms. To your point, they especially love mischaracterising Luddism in service of their profit-focused mission.
4 Likes
Along with the narrative that we need the looms in their responsible hands, because the existential risk is that less careful people might start weaving unstoppable superhumans on them.
6 Likes
3 Likes
4 Likes
It’s both of course. The specific gripe was that they got paid by the quality of the cloth. Those buying their work always tried to rip them off because of course. They refused to use machines which would attest the quality (thread count) of the fabric and only used machines which would fuck the workers.
So the Luddites were not against machines, they were against the alienation of labour.
4 Likes
That’s a crucial detail I hadn’t heard before, thanks.
4 Likes
Yes, but see, their alienation was GOOD, because it brought down labor costs and made some guy more money… why do you hate money Robert!!! /s
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
