That was the primary purpose of his work. I feel like the writer of this article is mistaking surreal metaphor for some metaphysical take that actually wasn’t there.

It’s a pretty big assumption that corporations are always acting perfectly efficient at acquiring wealth. Corporations act on behest of moral values significantly more than you’d think. Look at Elon musk, his shitty moral projecting is costing him and his businesses immensely. He is clear evidence that corporations will forgo profits and optics for moral projection.

This article is problematic for quite a few reasons. Number one: the false dichotomy being presented that Camus and Sartre are “opposites,” when one limits their primary focus to existentialism (Camus) while the other is WAYYYY more vocal about civil rights and post colonial analysis (Sartre). Camus’ silence shouldn’t be taken as complacency. Number two: The article tries to paint Camus as a racist evil monster just because he is LESS VOCAL about stuff he isn’t really too knowledgeable in. Camus mostly advocated for peace and was simply anti war without much consideration of any nuance beyond that. Ok sure, that’s a bit problematic, but let’s not pretend he was a militant racist colonial Nazi just because he was anti war including colonial revolution. “Opposites” my ass. Not every writer who doesn’t write about The Current War therefore supports the status quo. Grasping at straws. Number three: revolt falling within the purview of Europeans is a quote completely taken out of context. Here Camus isn’t even saying only Europeans can revolt, otherwise it’s bloodshed. HE IS CRITIQUING. The rest of his article in Rebel was about how hypocritical European colonial analysis is. He was against the French treatment of Algerians, and described this repression as a bad thing, yet the OOP insists that since his language wasn’t inflammatory enough, he is therefore a racist? Cmon. Sorry if my comment comes off as rambling, but I’m pissed off at this cherry-picked shitty clickbait journalism that doesn’t even attempt to read these people in context or in good faith. At least it serves as a reminder that Sartre was a badass, but that’s the only redeeming quality of this dogshit article.

Incongruence seems to fit the best with the assumptions baked into our language in my opinion. Considering irony in its definition is when something subverts it’s own meaning, and considering I am yet to get an explanation for why someone thought something was funny that didn’t have some irony baked in, I would say irony is the root of all humor, and therefore incongruence is the greatest explanation for it.

Grrrr I don’t like when big polluters receive positive press from making positive changes. Seriously though this is a huge step. Seeing news like this makes me a bit more proud to be a human. Off shore wind seems like a really good source considering what percentage of population of China is within 100 miles of the coast.

Is that worker taking flight?