3 ms·

> Do you think people in 1850 were "bothered" by the fact that they couldn't take regular showers? What's that supposed to prove? That I might retroactively i

> Do you think people in 1850 were "bothered" by the fact that they couldn't take regular showers? What's that supposed to prove? That I might retroactively impose modern values in some other area? For all I know, they enjoyed having the extra free time.

rayiner 9y ago
The point is that people generally don’t know what they don’t have. Just because they’re not “bothered” with something doesn’t mean that there isn’t something better out there for them, which they wouldn’t want to give up if they did have it.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  But that's a different thing. What we're talking about here was whether it was a "problem" for them or not, and I would say the lack of an unknown-unknown can't be a problem for someone (outside of some contrived scenarios). That's leaving aside the question of whether the particular unknown-unknown is actually better for them, or just something we'd like to be better for them.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    It’s not a view that makes any sense. People are incredibly resilient creatures. Kids in Bangladesh with access to adequately clean water are still happy kids! But that doesn’t mean that an outside observer, separated by either geography or time, can’t recognize things about their condition that are a problem.
    - Slansitartop 9y ago
      I don't agree. I think one thing that's confusing this is that your examples are all relatively objective, while the real topic is much more subjective and cultural. The activists who insist the Atari culture was a problem, against the testimony of the people who were actually there, are basically insisting the Atari-ans were incomplete because they lacked the activists culture. That's essentially a colonialist POV.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        Not having clean drinking water may be more objectively bad, but that also cuts the other way. If people can make their peace and be happy with something like not having clean drinking water, is it really surprising that women in circa 1970 Atari can tolerate a sexist work environment? So pointing to the fact that "people aren't complaining" really doesn't prove anything. You devalue the views of people in 2018, but they're the ones looking in from the outside. They have a level of objectivity because they know the alternatives. They're looking at it, and saying "this would suck." I'm a lawyer, and I've worked for women of the generation where someone could graduate top of her class in law school and be offered a secretarial position in a law firm. Back then, law firms were full of bright women who could have been lawyers, who became secretaries because that's just the way things were. Most people didn't see anything wrong with it, except the vocal minority. But ask women today, and you'll get a very different response. That's not a "cultural" difference. People back then weren't just more okay with wasting their potential. It’s just that their understanding of what is possible was circumscribed. The difference now is that people now know what's possible. "I can be a lawyer and not a secretary?" "I can work in an office without my coworkers inviting me into a hot tub?" To look at it another way: I've never met a woman who was like "you know what I want? For it to be more okay for men to make sexual advances at work." “I think it would be great if things were like Mad Men again.” They don’t say that, because that was a state of affairs that overwhelmingly benefited men.
        Slansitartop 9y ago
        > is it really surprising that women in circa 1970 Atari can tolerate a sexist work environment? Literally, by all accounts, they liked it and did not view it as problematic. They didn't just "tolerate" it. And honestly the correct adjective is probably "sexualized" not "sexist." > You devalue the views of people in 2018, but they're the ones looking in from the outside. They have a level of objectivity because they know the alternatives. They're looking at it, and saying "this would suck." No, they're not any more objective. If they were, they'd take the testimony of the people who where actually there more seriously, seeing as those are the facts. Instead, we get contemporary subjectivity passed off as the objective truth. The 2018s are aslo in a sense violating these Atari women by taking away their right to characterize their own experiences and lives. The most interesting aspects of this part of Atari, by far, are left unexplored because we can't escape the rubric of 2018 gender discussions. > I'm a lawyer, and I've worked for women of the generation where... Did any of those women work for Atari by chance? As a lawyer you should know that you can't pull random facts out of one case to "prove" another. We are not talking about a generalization about "women of a generation," we're talking about Atari in a specific time period.

rayiner 9y ago

The point is that people generally don’t know what they don’t have. Just because they’re not “bothered” with something doesn’t mean that there isn’t something better out there for them, which they wouldn’t want to give up if they did have it.

Slansitartop 9y ago
But that's a different thing. What we're talking about here was whether it was a "problem" for them or not, and I would say the lack of an unknown-unknown can't be a problem for someone (outside of some contrived scenarios). That's leaving aside the question of whether the particular unknown-unknown is actually better for them, or just something we'd like to be better for them.
- rayiner 9y ago
  It’s not a view that makes any sense. People are incredibly resilient creatures. Kids in Bangladesh with access to adequately clean water are still happy kids! But that doesn’t mean that an outside observer, separated by either geography or time, can’t recognize things about their condition that are a problem.
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    I don't agree. I think one thing that's confusing this is that your examples are all relatively objective, while the real topic is much more subjective and cultural. The activists who insist the Atari culture was a problem, against the testimony of the people who were actually there, are basically insisting the Atari-ans were incomplete because they lacked the activists culture. That's essentially a colonialist POV.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Not having clean drinking water may be more objectively bad, but that also cuts the other way. If people can make their peace and be happy with something like not having clean drinking water, is it really surprising that women in circa 1970 Atari can tolerate a sexist work environment? So pointing to the fact that "people aren't complaining" really doesn't prove anything. You devalue the views of people in 2018, but they're the ones looking in from the outside. They have a level of objectivity because they know the alternatives. They're looking at it, and saying "this would suck." I'm a lawyer, and I've worked for women of the generation where someone could graduate top of her class in law school and be offered a secretarial position in a law firm. Back then, law firms were full of bright women who could have been lawyers, who became secretaries because that's just the way things were. Most people didn't see anything wrong with it, except the vocal minority. But ask women today, and you'll get a very different response. That's not a "cultural" difference. People back then weren't just more okay with wasting their potential. It’s just that their understanding of what is possible was circumscribed. The difference now is that people now know what's possible. "I can be a lawyer and not a secretary?" "I can work in an office without my coworkers inviting me into a hot tub?" To look at it another way: I've never met a woman who was like "you know what I want? For it to be more okay for men to make sexual advances at work." “I think it would be great if things were like Mad Men again.” They don’t say that, because that was a state of affairs that overwhelmingly benefited men.
      - Slansitartop 9y ago
        > is it really surprising that women in circa 1970 Atari can tolerate a sexist work environment? Literally, by all accounts, they liked it and did not view it as problematic. They didn't just "tolerate" it. And honestly the correct adjective is probably "sexualized" not "sexist." > You devalue the views of people in 2018, but they're the ones looking in from the outside. They have a level of objectivity because they know the alternatives. They're looking at it, and saying "this would suck." No, they're not any more objective. If they were, they'd take the testimony of the people who where actually there more seriously, seeing as those are the facts. Instead, we get contemporary subjectivity passed off as the objective truth. The 2018s are aslo in a sense violating these Atari women by taking away their right to characterize their own experiences and lives. The most interesting aspects of this part of Atari, by far, are left unexplored because we can't escape the rubric of 2018 gender discussions. > I'm a lawyer, and I've worked for women of the generation where... Did any of those women work for Atari by chance? As a lawyer you should know that you can't pull random facts out of one case to "prove" another. We are not talking about a generalization about "women of a generation," we're talking about Atari in a specific time period.