alcibiades

Yeah you're right, there was no such thing as stock markets until 2010 I heard

Before capitalism was invented in 2010 we were just guided by happiness and the pursuit of science and art and improving our livelihoods 🥰

Nah I get what you’re saying. Those are all good things and I agree with pretty much everything in your other comment. I just think that the Apollo missions and other space missions, despite bringing about good, did not occur because of good intentions.

But yeah you’re right that by learning about other planets we learn a lot about our own and how to move forward. A part of my brain just refuses to recognize most of the good in space exploration because the common attitude towards space exploration is similar to our attitude toward colonization.

Why when people describe living on the Moon or Mars do they use the word colonize? To me it implies that these spaces are only useful if we can extract profit. And now there’s talk of exploring other space rocks (sorry for broad term) because they contain precious metals we’re running out of on earth. It’s just gross to think that the only way space can be explored or properly funded is if it makes more money and ends up exploiting someone.

I’m not your buddy either 😡

• want to quote smtn from mla guide on citing sources

• use broad and ambiguous blog post for making a glossary (a collection of textual glosses, click the link to learn what those words mean)

• don’t use a glossary

• profit?

• want to defend my half assed attempt at using thesaurus.com

• tacitly acknowledge that I did change my language as the comment chain went on

as established, I don’t care about your opinion

• keep responding to the antagonizer whose opinion I clearly care about

Calm down please

Buddy you picked one (one) sentence from my original comment, decided that was the only relevant bit of information, and then blabbered on about what it means to move the goalposts.

The reason I pointed out you copy/pasting the definition is because you clearly wanted it to look like you came up with that yourself. You didn’t put it in quotes and you didn’t add a link (unlike your other comments where you either provided a source or put a statement in quotes). You aren’t consistent, it makes you a bad writer.

Also we both sound like idiots in case you haven’t realized. It’s sounds so stupid to be like “yeah I actually won the comment chain cause I was only responding to the one hyperbolic and purposefully angering statement and not the other parts. So you’re the idiot actually”

And I sound stupid cause I keep responding to you. So how about we both agree we sufficiently wasted our time and leave it at that. 😣

Are you not “moving the goalposts” by focusing solely on me making fun of your language and the definition of the phrase instead of the original discussion? You are dismissing my claims and demanding I talk about how smart you tried to make yourself sound.

And the reason I pointed out your language is because it sounds so different than your first comment that it’s obvious that you took it from somewhere else (you literally copy/pasted Wikipedia’s definition of “moving the goalposts” you aren’t slick lol)

Bro it doesn’t make you sound smart to use words like “fallacy” and “tacitly” 💔 I don’t need “moving the goalpost” defined to me.

Tbh we operating on two different wavelengths. Let’s end it with this

1. My original question was poorly worded, not fully thought out, and in the most literal sense was wrong. And yeah it does minimize all advancement made as a byproduct, that was the point of such a question.

2. The argument that I am trying to tell you is not related to just the moon landing. It is a response to the original commenter who, in my opinion, implied that there was something greater about space exploration post-war. I think that it was a result of the USA’s imperialist and capitalist goals. Those goals (as they always do) lined up with the goals of the wealthiest and most powerful (non-politician) people of the time. Space exploration today isnt less exciting because billionaires have too much power. They still had a shit ton of power post-war and still ran the country.

I believe that the space exploration boom was because it was an opportunity to gain capital and win an ideological battle. In 2025 space does not fill that role.

So funnily enough the introductory paragraph to part of an article isn’t the evidence portion, it’s just the intro. Yknow you could’ve just quoted from the part where they describe said technological advances or that author’s thesis.

I don’t see how I could’ve “moved the goalpost” any more than you are doing right now. To be more specific

I struggle to see how the scientific advancements required going to the moon

is more of a statement than an answer to the question of “how did the moon landing help the average man?.” Who’s to say the technology would’ve been made w/out the moon landing? See how this is a pointless argument we’re both making?

And btw the first question isn’t an argument or my main idea. It’s a question added for emphasis. What I’m trying to say is that we should not pretend that the moon landing and all early space exploration was a noble non-capitalist venture focused on the benefit of man (as the original commenter implied). Our current relationship with space is not stagnant because of billionaires for the same reason that our relationship with space post-war was so accelerated.

Both of those focus on political and cultural achievements, which in my opinion, do not help the average man. They were achievements in propaganda and leave out a large part of our population.

I also struggle to see how the scientific achievements required going to the moon (Besides learning about earth/moon origin). The other achievements like wireless tools and head seats did not require a moon landing.

I would. The literature the other commenter provided really did not help me understand the benefits of it. Both articles they listed focused on how much of a cultural and political achievement it was. However, as I pointed out, that perspective leaves out a large portion of our population.

The science achievements sound good. We learned the origin of the earth and moon and NASA invented a few good gadgets like wireless headsets- obviously good contributions. But I don’t see how those outweigh the cons of the Apollo program.

It cost so much money and distracted the populace from the very real issues going on at the time. It was a great propaganda victory.

My comment was trying to point out how the early space exploration was not any better/more noble/less capital focused than our current relationship with scientific exploration. It is foolish to act like everyone was perfect back then and all happy to go and colonize the moon.

When we watched the blue origin flight we didn’t get excited by the science and its possible cultural impact. We got mad because it was a bunch of billionaires fucking around. I would hope that if we were alive for the space race, we would recognize how similar of a situation it was. The USA didn’t invest billions of dollars in scientific research. They invested billions in creating an image of the USA as the center of the scientific world and the leader of western nations.

What are you talking about? Everyone was a capitalist back then as they are now. The space race was as much a capitalist conquest for glory as it was beneficial for technology/science.

In the USA we wasted time, money, and media resources going to the moon while black people were treated as less than citizens and millions were living in abject poverty. Not much has changed on that front for the countries entire history. What good did the moon landing do for the average man?

Same with the USSR. As people starved and lived under a dictatorship, the ruling class wasted the countries money by getting into a dick measuring contest.

The billionaires have taken over since colonialism became the status quo in the 15th century. Most of the technological progress since then is guided by capital and not something noble.

— I forgot to add that most of the technological progress in the 20th century happened because we were so hellbent on murdering one another that we had to come up with new and efficient methods. Your concept of “progress” is skewed in favor of the same systems that you want to dismantle.

It sucks cause in most cities in basically is. DUIs can really quickly ruin your life. No car = no work

Also I think what is really shitty is that outlets report on a genocide in this matter. But this article was about the response to Bob Vylan. I think both of us are angry about how anything related to the genocide has to be reported as the Israel Palestine conflict unless you want to receive an extremely negative response to your reporting.

Hell if we want to be all intellectual we can brand this as another symptom of the global capitalist system. AP can’t afford to call this a genocide. No news/corporation is brave enough to stand up to the genocide because it’s gonna hurt their bottom line.