3 ms·

Sure that's fair, but that only expands the circle of condescension, which is perhaps _slightly_ better because it weakens the element of class snobbery. The no

Sure that's fair, but that only expands the circle of condescension, which is perhaps _slightly_ better because it weakens the element of class snobbery. The notion that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who doesn't understand what's good for them as well as you understand what's good for them is what I'm pushing back against. The very phrase "voting against their own interests" is dripping with condescension and the presumption that you understand their lives better than they do. It's the same justification used for every historical and current violation of freedom in the social sphere: gay conversion therapy, the drug war, mores around gender roles, etc etc. The fact that economic constraints don't evoke the same immediate reaction as social ones doesn't mean that economic policy can't have an immense impact on people's lives, and cause or alleviate immense suffering. Now don't get me wrong: I'm not some extremist hyper-individualist believer in Homo Economicus, and I think there's plenty of scope for paternalism in policy. I think that it's entirely possible to talk to a specific person about their policy beliefs and come away with the view that they don't understand what's going on and are voting against their own interests. I just think that a little humility is in order when making assumptions about other people's lives and struggles a d choices, and applying this approach en masse with blanket statements like the GP comment (and your own, to a lesser degree) is a lot more likely to be ignorant of the realities of the variety and complexity of these people's lives.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> It's the same justification used for every historical and current violation of freedom in the social sphere: gay conversion therapy, the drug war, mores around gender roles, etc etc. It is. It doesn't mean the justification is always wrong, much like Stalin believing 2+2=4 doesn't disprove arithmetic. I agree with the call to humility and I generally not tell individuals I know better than them how they should live their lives, but my comment is a) on the systemic level, and b) based on direct and indirect experience. For instance, some of the evidence backing my belief is the experience of people close to me who went through periods of abusive employments, and whose stories I got to hear throughout it. For instance, one of those people was stuck under a verbally and mentally abusive boss who exploited the perception of local employment conditions to keep people underpaid and overworked. The irony is, the abused employees were also critical to that man's financial success, and they could've easily fixed the situation for themselves, if they got together. Unfortunately, they (including my close acquaintance) were all scared shitless and couldn't coordinate - everyone was essentially worried no one else would step up, and the lone person would lose the job. Having seen or heard of cases like this, and also having read here many stories that essentially boil down to "short-term rewards prevent people from taking actions beneficial to their career longer-term" (carrots work better in our industry, for now), I came to the conclusion that it's ridiculously easy to exploit workers. Now, since the context of this discussion is Uber, a notoriously morally bankrupt company, I don't think myself or the OP are too paternalistic with this sentiment. It's not intended as a criticism of workers (myself I'm not immune to this kind of pressure either), but exploitative employers.
- nemo44x 7y ago
  Not to be a communist or anything but 2+2 does equal 4.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> It's the same justification used for every historical and current violation of freedom in the social sphere: gay conversion therapy, the drug war, mores around gender roles, etc etc. It is. It doesn't mean the justification is always wrong, much like Stalin believing 2+2=4 doesn't disprove arithmetic. I agree with the call to humility and I generally not tell individuals I know better than them how they should live their lives, but my comment is a) on the systemic level, and b) based on direct and indirect experience. For instance, some of the evidence backing my belief is the experience of people close to me who went through periods of abusive employments, and whose stories I got to hear throughout it. For instance, one of those people was stuck under a verbally and mentally abusive boss who exploited the perception of local employment conditions to keep people underpaid and overworked. The irony is, the abused employees were also critical to that man's financial success, and they could've easily fixed the situation for themselves, if they got together. Unfortunately, they (including my close acquaintance) were all scared shitless and couldn't coordinate - everyone was essentially worried no one else would step up, and the lone person would lose the job. Having seen or heard of cases like this, and also having read here many stories that essentially boil down to "short-term rewards prevent people from taking actions beneficial to their career longer-term" (carrots work better in our industry, for now), I came to the conclusion that it's ridiculously easy to exploit workers. Now, since the context of this discussion is Uber, a notoriously morally bankrupt company, I don't think myself or the OP are too paternalistic with this sentiment. It's not intended as a criticism of workers (myself I'm not immune to this kind of pressure either), but exploitative employers.

nemo44x 7y ago
Not to be a communist or anything but 2+2 does equal 4.