5 ms·

>The slums act like incubators Yeah. Sure. Keep telling yourself that. 1 in 3 people in Rio live in those slums. Even Rio's socialists want god "to step in and

>The slums act like incubators Yeah. Sure. Keep telling yourself that. 1 in 3 people in Rio live in those slums. Even Rio's socialists want god "to step in and clean up this mess", because they view the slum inhabitants as less than human and deserving of their fate. The poverty there is so bad people break into houses of vacationing families and steal everything: copper pipe, kitchen sink, floorboard -- the freaking floorboards -- because they're useful in improving life in the slums. My friend spent 4 months there, and had to travel through the slums almost daily. He's concluded that poverty -- real poverty like what he's witnessed with his own eyes -- doesn't exist in the U.S. Here's a tip: Brazil's economy is doing well because it is not oil-dependent, it exports oil, it has no social safety net, and its doing whatever it can to attract foreign investment. The slums have nothing to do with, except as a refuge for those who are left behind by the economy.

forinti 16y ago
Brazil does have a social safety net. It has a universal health care system, unemployment benefits, benefits for families with children, and a few other things. They may not be great, but they sure do exist.
- quanticle 16y ago
  A safety net is useless if it doesn't cover those who need it the most. That's the problem with the social safety-nets in many developing countries. On paper they're great. The problem comes up if you try collecting your benefits while being a member of the underclass.
  - redrobot5050 16y ago
    This rings very, very true. In Rio, there are free schools that any child can attend so long as they show up. The thing is, they put those schools so far away from the slums as a disincentive for the barefoot underclass from showing up. Sure, a child could walk 6 miles one way uphill to get an education. And some families might support that. But in general, when a family doesn't know when or where its next meal is coming from, it has higher priorities than schooling.
michaelkeenan 16y ago
The needless snarkiness ("Yeah. Sure. Keep telling yourself that...Here's a tip") detracts from this comment. It would be more persuasive without it, because when you include status-lowering attacks with your factual counter-arguments, your opponent can't agree with you without lowering zir status.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jbooth 16y ago
  Sometimes people who are utterly, utterly clueless about how the other half lives need a wakeup call.
  - michaelkeenan 16y ago
    If a wakeup call drives a clueless person further into their clueless position, it's the last thing they need. What they need is a persuasive argument with an escape route where they can concede while losing minimal status. It's difficult to see it from the other side. When we see a status attack favoring a position we agree with, it feels like a righteous smiting of the enemy. But it doesn't have the effect we intuitively think it does.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Sometimes, offensive comments need to be called out as offensive. Had the person been talking about, say, post-Katrina New Orleans as an "incubator for innovation" they'd be downmodded to oblivion.
      - michaelkeenan 16y ago
        I suppose I am assuming that the purpose of a discussion on HN is truth-seeking. If we are also enforcing social norms, then it makes sense to attack the status of those who propose offensive things. Enforcing social norms must come at the expense of truth-seeking though, and I think truth-seeking is more important. Anyone can easily think of examples from history where offensive opinions turned out to be correct, and there are sure to be views today which are regarded as offensive and are also correct. Paul Graham wrote about this in What You Can't Say: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html Edit: We have drifted from the original topic somewhat. The snarkiness I objected to wasn't calling out his opponent as offensive. It was just snarkiness.

forinti 16y ago

Brazil does have a social safety net. It has a universal health care system, unemployment benefits, benefits for families with children, and a few other things. They may not be great, but they sure do exist.

quanticle 16y ago
A safety net is useless if it doesn't cover those who need it the most. That's the problem with the social safety-nets in many developing countries. On paper they're great. The problem comes up if you try collecting your benefits while being a member of the underclass.
- redrobot5050 16y ago
  This rings very, very true. In Rio, there are free schools that any child can attend so long as they show up. The thing is, they put those schools so far away from the slums as a disincentive for the barefoot underclass from showing up. Sure, a child could walk 6 miles one way uphill to get an education. And some families might support that. But in general, when a family doesn't know when or where its next meal is coming from, it has higher priorities than schooling.

michaelkeenan 16y ago

The needless snarkiness ("Yeah. Sure. Keep telling yourself that...Here's a tip") detracts from this comment. It would be more persuasive without it, because when you include status-lowering attacks with your factual counter-arguments, your opponent can't agree with you without lowering zir status.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jbooth 16y ago
Sometimes people who are utterly, utterly clueless about how the other half lives need a wakeup call.
- michaelkeenan 16y ago
  If a wakeup call drives a clueless person further into their clueless position, it's the last thing they need. What they need is a persuasive argument with an escape route where they can concede while losing minimal status. It's difficult to see it from the other side. When we see a status attack favoring a position we agree with, it feels like a righteous smiting of the enemy. But it doesn't have the effect we intuitively think it does.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Sometimes, offensive comments need to be called out as offensive. Had the person been talking about, say, post-Katrina New Orleans as an "incubator for innovation" they'd be downmodded to oblivion.
    - michaelkeenan 16y ago
      I suppose I am assuming that the purpose of a discussion on HN is truth-seeking. If we are also enforcing social norms, then it makes sense to attack the status of those who propose offensive things. Enforcing social norms must come at the expense of truth-seeking though, and I think truth-seeking is more important. Anyone can easily think of examples from history where offensive opinions turned out to be correct, and there are sure to be views today which are regarded as offensive and are also correct. Paul Graham wrote about this in What You Can't Say: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html Edit: We have drifted from the original topic somewhat. The snarkiness I objected to wasn't calling out his opponent as offensive. It was just snarkiness.