You're maliciously interpreting OP to imply that "slaving over a hot keyboard" is the only way to feel fulfilled.
Whether you are an employee, company owner, gardener, woodworker, whatever you are being fulfilled by "working". Applying yourself willfully and deliberately to a problem. If you are not being fulfilled you find something else. Or, like most people, you realize working for someone won't be fulfilling, so you instead seek fulfillment in work that you enjoy - such as your hobbies.
This equating of employment with slavery by the /r/antiwork types is why the subreddit is quickly becoming the butt of every joke. Yes, it's not uncommon your profession is unfulfilling. Most well adjusted people derive fulfillment from work outside of their profession.
I was for a few years in college a data entry clerk making $12.50/hr. It was effectively copy/pasting with some extra clicks and being a computer science student at the time I wrote an excel connector that did ~80% of my job. It only required me to intervene on especially hard data entry stuff (lots of math or formulas). There really was no benefit to tell anyone I did this. Not because I wanted to be lazy but it would just mean more data entry and not what I wanted to do (automating other people's stuff).
There's loads of these BS jobs out there especially when numpty salesmen are involved. It was relatively soul crushing because it didn't really afford me any extra time to do school work (cube farm yay) but I was able to basically zone out and make money, or stash some homework problems and work them while appearing to stare intently at the screen. I don't harbor any ill will towards them though unlike most of these /r/antiwork losers. They were friendly to me and it was just the culture there that "if it isn't done manually then we dont need a person to do it".
I ended up getting a couple raises and only left when I got my first real SWE job. I got in touch with them recently and there are still some scripts running some important IT processes I wrote many, many years ago running today.
In fact, both Di'Angelo and X Kendi have written opinionated, arguably racist (reverse racist?) hot takes that both boil down to the self-flagellation of one race. The premise of both books (and yes, I have read them) is that white people are born with an original sin that cannot be cleansed, but only fought against, and the only way to do this is accept the (false) premise that you are intrinsically a racist and you must actively fight against this. By "you", I of course mean "white people". Ascribing negative traits to someone based on their race is racist, QED.
They are both textbook examples of a false premise. Extremely difficult to refute because by design it's created to immediately incriminate people opposed to it. So no one with any sense opposes, lest they become an anti-anti-racist, which somehow means "racist". It fails the freshman logic course test which tells you all you need to know.
They qualify as garbage. If not because the authors have a clear agenda other than (social) science, but because their cases are based on demonstrably false premises that lead to wild, racist, and absurd conclusions. There is very little difference between these books and the racist books of 100 years ago except the premise was altered and the colors changed. They might belong as a times best seller in today's social battlefield but there is no substance in them besides their inflammatory titles and racist conclusions.
> The "pro bodily autonomy" message is smoke and mirrors, designed to put a palatable glaze on an increasingly fringe and reactionary position.
There is absolutely nothing fringe about wanting control of your body. This is a modern authoritarian take that is working to undo the last 50 years of increases in bodily freedom for everyone. I obviously won't win against someone espousing left-authoritarian views because neither of us will concede. But I do have some rhetorical things for you:
On "smoke and mirrors" for "an increasingly fringe, reactionary position". Do you think the same about abortion? Or is it, in your mind, okay for that form of bodily autonomy but some forms of bodily autonomy are more okay than others? Do you draw the line where "it harms people"? Who are "people"? It doesn't help you linked the CDC who has a vested interest in talking down the "bodily autonomy" argument as a public policy (public health is typically diametrically opposed to bodily autonomy because public health requires shirking the individual for the "common" good).
Arguing against bodily autonomy is binary. Either you are for bodily autonomy or you are for some level of government control over what people can and can't do with themselves. What I am willing to do to myself is my own business. Why should anyone but me decide?
It's not nice to lump me in with anti-vaxxers but I guess that's how modern politics^W^W^W^W^W^W science is.
I don't take the stance that children have complete autonomy only because it leads to some very strange and disturbing consequences. Therefore, if the parents decide the child should not be vaccinated than I think that's a fine decision. I also think deciding your child should be vaccinated is a fine decision.
Where I draw the line is the prevention of attendance at a learning institution. Since you mentioned public school, then this should either have a distanced option (home schooling, etc) or permit the students regardless. Private institutions may do what they please. Yes, this also goes for public grant-receiving universities, community colleges, etc. Forcing people to manufacturer "exemptions" is simply an end-around to the government enforcing it's will upon people and their choices with their body. It's both immoral and unethical.
Shocking statement that demonstrates more attempt to spin than inform.
Supposing we take the webster dictionary definition of police state: "political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures"
Considering this effects up to 40% of the population according to the article it checks quite a few boxes:
1. Arbitrary: No precedent, first in the world to do so, with no evidence this will solve the problem in total (controlling covid completely).
2. Repressive government control: There's no argument this fits the strictest definition of repressive.
3. Exercise of power by the police: There's no statement they'll use "secret police" but certainly the enforcement will be aggressive and severe to keep 40% of the population locked down. It's not like watching one person's house. That's a lot of people.
For the record, I am not against vaccines. I am however pro bodily autonomy at any cost, for whatever reason, in any condition. The "price to pay in society" isn't to violate your bodily autonomy, and therefore the non-aggression principle, but make a personal decision to avoid or interact with people you disagree with.
It turns out that all it took to test the waters of liberty and free will was deciding what you want to, and what you dont want to, put in your body. You would even think this would be a cut and dry case considering the alleged "libertarian" leanings of HN, but to my surprise it seems many people are willing to sacrifice this fundamental liberty for ephemeral (possibly even negative) gain. We're 2 years into 15 days to flatten the curve. We have all the evidence to show this won't fix anything unless these people are locked down permanently. At that point they may as well be thrown in prisons, or camps, or whatever the dictator says to do. Democracies can't simply hold you down and inject you with chemicals but coercing these people with objectively police state style tactics is the way tyrants dressed as democratic leaders effectively accomplish the same thing.
You're maliciously interpreting OP to imply that "slaving over a hot keyboard" is the only way to feel fulfilled.
Whether you are an employee, company owner, gardener, woodworker, whatever you are being fulfilled by "working". Applying yourself willfully and deliberately to a problem. If you are not being fulfilled you find something else. Or, like most people, you realize working for someone won't be fulfilling, so you instead seek fulfillment in work that you enjoy - such as your hobbies.
This equating of employment with slavery by the /r/antiwork types is why the subreddit is quickly becoming the butt of every joke. Yes, it's not uncommon your profession is unfulfilling. Most well adjusted people derive fulfillment from work outside of their profession.