3 ms·

You can associate it with controversial groups and ideologies, in the same way a person can claim they relate to the statement in some way. I'm from a third-wor

You can associate it with controversial groups and ideologies, in the same way a person can claim they relate to the statement in some way. I'm from a third-world country, and have been personally beset with circumstances that have left me at massive disadvantages, and I cannot be more thankful to have experienced them as I have been stronger because of it. > This sounds pedantic, but it's a core point that the quote talks of men, while historically... Is it? I took it as referring to mankind and not referring to males in particular. Them bad times could surely have affected, strengthened females as well. I'm sure you know that labor-saving machinery in the home have benefited everyone regardless of gender, too... Also, I think we shouldn't conflate accessibility with convenience. The two are simply not the same. Increasing accessibility is good, because without it, some people will simply be excluded. Convenience, on the other hand? Seemingly useless hyper-specific kitchen gadgets in particular can be interpreted as capitalizing on people who don't want to spend time and/or willing spend more money on things. Not sure if it's a virtuous example, and I may be wrong in this one. > "Convenience" doesn't just extend your life by giving you more in the middle. It extends your time of useful independence. I do agree with this, too. I just think that exposure to convenience without experiencing the lack of it keeps you ignorant of its true value which is the opportunity and pursuit of higher purpose, and I am left wondering if such a thing should be held as strong as we see in society today.

pjc50 7y ago
> I'm sure you know that labor-saving machinery in the home have benefited everyone regardless of gender While this is true in a pedantic sense, prior to the 20th century this work was overwhelmingly done by women; not easy to "save" a labour of men that wasn't being done by them in the first place but instead being outsourced with a strong element of social and household coercion... > I just think that exposure to convenience without experiencing the lack of it keeps you ignorant of its true value Largely this is what the "privilege" discussion is about.
- salawat 7y ago
  With all due respect were you here before the 20th century? Was anyone looking at this site? There's an old bit of cross-generational wisdom that I can't quite find the provenance of, but damnit, I know I've seen it before, and it goes something like: >Let the wars of the past die with those who fought them. The point being, they fought the fight that you wouldn't have to live in the same world, and fight the same battles they did. That was then, this is now, and we even have precedent of what hasn't worked historically to help guide us. Let the sin of the parent reflect not on the child. The child is born into a world which is shaped around them until such time as they too can contribute to reshaping the societal fabric. The phrase fits into such controversial ideologies just as much as mainstream ones because it describes a pattern, nothing more. The thing that makes the jihadi and fascist interpretations of it controversial is the course of actions they believe it justifies. Not the pattern itself. Now, more on topic. There is value in understanding "where you came from", and the path previously tread. Moving [society/the species] forward is difficult when you don't even understand what was being moved away from in the first place, and why. Heck, you don't even understand the direction you're going in the ideological landscape if you can't reconcile the required ethics of your sociological end condition with a physical environment capable of supporting them. People see things in different ways, because everyone is mentally equipped with a different view of the puzzle of survival in the physical world. I might, as a hypothetical, understand how to guide a group through an environment, and build a sustainable community given the physical constraints, while being largely blind to the norms and emotional needs of those in it. This is why we're social creatures. We balance off one another so the collective can perpetuate. But if we all get stuck in the past, and dig up every skeleton to have a crusade over, we're never going to get anywhere, or do anything to leave the next generation in a better starting place than what we had to start with; and I think deep down we can all agree that is a reasonable goal, yes? To leave the world (and those in it) in a better condition for us having lived than not?

pjc50 7y ago

> I'm sure you know that labor-saving machinery in the home have benefited everyone regardless of gender While this is true in a pedantic sense, prior to the 20th century this work was overwhelmingly done by women; not easy to "save" a labour of men that wasn't being done by them in the first place but instead being outsourced with a strong element of social and household coercion... > I just think that exposure to convenience without experiencing the lack of it keeps you ignorant of its true value Largely this is what the "privilege" discussion is about.

salawat 7y ago
With all due respect were you here before the 20th century? Was anyone looking at this site? There's an old bit of cross-generational wisdom that I can't quite find the provenance of, but damnit, I know I've seen it before, and it goes something like: >Let the wars of the past die with those who fought them. The point being, they fought the fight that you wouldn't have to live in the same world, and fight the same battles they did. That was then, this is now, and we even have precedent of what hasn't worked historically to help guide us. Let the sin of the parent reflect not on the child. The child is born into a world which is shaped around them until such time as they too can contribute to reshaping the societal fabric. The phrase fits into such controversial ideologies just as much as mainstream ones because it describes a pattern, nothing more. The thing that makes the jihadi and fascist interpretations of it controversial is the course of actions they believe it justifies. Not the pattern itself. Now, more on topic. There is value in understanding "where you came from", and the path previously tread. Moving [society/the species] forward is difficult when you don't even understand what was being moved away from in the first place, and why. Heck, you don't even understand the direction you're going in the ideological landscape if you can't reconcile the required ethics of your sociological end condition with a physical environment capable of supporting them. People see things in different ways, because everyone is mentally equipped with a different view of the puzzle of survival in the physical world. I might, as a hypothetical, understand how to guide a group through an environment, and build a sustainable community given the physical constraints, while being largely blind to the norms and emotional needs of those in it. This is why we're social creatures. We balance off one another so the collective can perpetuate. But if we all get stuck in the past, and dig up every skeleton to have a crusade over, we're never going to get anywhere, or do anything to leave the next generation in a better starting place than what we had to start with; and I think deep down we can all agree that is a reasonable goal, yes? To leave the world (and those in it) in a better condition for us having lived than not?