Jobs

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
I don't know if I'd call Steve Jobs Galactus, probably more like Iron Man. But Karl Max as Aquaman is a pretty good comparison, both were useless fucks who only attracted weirdo losers.
The comparison was the other way around, in case you couldn't follow.

You do not, we should not as a society, idolizecommodity production. That's all this movie and the social network are.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,825
82,251
I'm kinda confused why you'd make a movie about someone that made a commodity. Is a commodity that fucking exciting or important? I mean do you care about Bill Gate's or Llloyd Blankfein's (who didn't even make anything) life? Making a company or a commodity isn't a 'movie'. And so equally retarded was the social network.

Just goes to show you where society places much of its thought - the fetishism of commodities.
This particular commodity happens to be cutting edge technology that's changed humanity.
 

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
This particular commodity happens to be cutting edge technology that's changed humanity.
Except that it hasn't. At all. A smartphone already existed long before. Jobs made it shiny and fashionable.

Even calling theoriginalsmartphone as a gamechanger is debatable. Products, typically, don'tchangesomeone's mode of living, unless you count tweeting from your phone as a different mode of life (which you possibly could, but a productive or necessarily healthy one? hardly) only what they can do within it. It's like saying a Playstation changed society because it was the first successful CD game system - no, it just provided entertainment for those within it.
 

Alex

Still a Music Elitist
14,692
7,522
Except that it hasn't. At all. A smartphone already existed long before. Jobs made it shiny and fashionable.

Even calling theoriginalsmartphone as a gamechanger is debatable. Products, typically, don'tchangesomeone's mode of living, unless you count tweeting from your phone as a different mode of life (which you possibly could, but a productive or necessarily healthy one? hardly) only what they can do within it. It's like saying a Playstation changed society because it was the first successful CD game system - no, it just provided entertainment for those within it.
Do you know what this is? I bet people under 16 don't. Smartphones changed that.

Rand-McNally.jpg


I'm disappointed in you, Dumar. You usually bring your A-game.
 

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Well, it is based off of one person's life that actually happened. I wouldn't expect too many surprises in it.
Bro, that trailer was a 2 minute movie. It gave the conflict, it had an arc, and it was resolved.
 

Xeldar

Silver Squire
1,546
133
Sure, I'm a big fan of describing reality such as it is.
"who works for whom, the production-time for a commodity, et cetera-are perceived as economic relations among objects"

How do you even create a test to falsify this hypothesis?
 

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
Do you know what this is? I bet people under 16 don't. Smartphones changed that.

I'm disappointed in you, Dumar. You usually bring your A-game.
GPS changed that, which was created by the government. Smartphones are great, but they're not that important. You don't see movies being made about GPS or cellphones or anything else with a true profound influence. Where's the movie about the integrated circuit, the telephone itself, hell, fucking electricity? Where's the teenie-bop soap opera drama written about Edison and Tesla? The answer is because 'what's important' or 'what's changed society' doesn't make a fucking difference - what matters is how popular a commodity, and if that commodity is represented by an individual (the more narcissistic, the better), then that relationship is highly marketable as yetanothercommodity, a stupid fucking movie about Steve Jobs.

How do you even create a test to falsify this hypothesis?
To NOT perceive them as economic relations among objects? They certainly are perceived that way, no question (e.g., with phrases like 'human capital'). To falsify, you'd have to study a group of people performing economic activity that exist wholly outside of western capitalism and note their relations, their references to each other, which I'm sure has been done.
 

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
"who works for whom, the production-time for a commodity, et cetera-are perceived as economic relations among objects"

How do you even create a test to falsify this hypothesis?
Well, thats the thing. It isn't a scientific theory, its just a theory. Many philosophy of science textbooks actually use communist theory as an example of a non-falsifiable non-scientific theory example.
 

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
Well, thats the thing. It isn't a scientific theory, its just a theory. Many philosophy of science textbooks actually use communist theory as an example of a non-falsifiable non-scientific theory example.
I disagree with them to some extent - they are falsifiable, unlike what Popper thinks. It's just that to falsify them, the lab and instrumentation needed is on such a massive scale and timeframe that it makes it almost impossible.