4 ms·

Sort of creeped out to realize how many of the folks here think that they're being contrarian by defending socially obnoxious behaviours. Ultimately, it's just

Sort of creeped out to realize how many of the folks here think that they're being contrarian by defending socially obnoxious behaviours. Ultimately, it's just a funny story but it's also a potent allegory about blindness to privilege. To everyone else on the planet, this is the literal equivalent of stealing the red stapler. Meanwhile, it's shocking that nobody has created a startup for employees to request and give feedback on free snacks at startups.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
The phenomenon described is a significant source of social woes in every place on the planet. This is how you get overfishing, overgrazing, and other forms of overexploitation of natural resources. This is how you get people not caring about pollution prematurely killing others because hey, it's cheaper for me to burn actual trash in my stove. This is how you get companies like Uber and AirBnB, all too happy to strip mine the non-material, social commons. This is exactly why "we can't have nice things". Sure, in a microkitchen this is just obnoxious. But this exact - not similar, but exact - pattern of thinking causes trouble everywhere. So I'm more than creeped out to see people defending it.
floatingatoll 7y ago
Maybe not contrarian, but game theory and denial. If they prefer to take socially obnoxious actions for some benefit, then they would either have to react by defending the actions of others that parallel their own, or confront that they are being socially obnoxious to others. Humans are, sadly, prone to doubling down on defending the right to be socially obnoxious rather than admitting that they are being socially obnoxious :( And since this is a denial problem, it’s usually paired with “Theoretically”, “Not that I would”, “It’s fair game” and my personal favorite “They should work harder to prevent this” — which is beautiful as a cognitive dissonance: 1) They support acting selfishly (socially obnoxious) to some benefit to themselves at the expense of others; 2) They want everyone to fairly have access to that same benefit, as long as that does not interrupt their own benefit. Thus, the ‘obvious’ solution to ‘stock more Tejava’: it combines the selfishness of #1 and the moral high ground of #2 without requiring any extra effort or loss of benefit.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

The phenomenon described is a significant source of social woes in every place on the planet. This is how you get overfishing, overgrazing, and other forms of overexploitation of natural resources. This is how you get people not caring about pollution prematurely killing others because hey, it's cheaper for me to burn actual trash in my stove. This is how you get companies like Uber and AirBnB, all too happy to strip mine the non-material, social commons. This is exactly why "we can't have nice things". Sure, in a microkitchen this is just obnoxious. But this exact - not similar, but exact - pattern of thinking causes trouble everywhere. So I'm more than creeped out to see people defending it.

floatingatoll 7y ago

Maybe not contrarian, but game theory and denial. If they prefer to take socially obnoxious actions for some benefit, then they would either have to react by defending the actions of others that parallel their own, or confront that they are being socially obnoxious to others. Humans are, sadly, prone to doubling down on defending the right to be socially obnoxious rather than admitting that they are being socially obnoxious :( And since this is a denial problem, it’s usually paired with “Theoretically”, “Not that I would”, “It’s fair game” and my personal favorite “They should work harder to prevent this” — which is beautiful as a cognitive dissonance: 1) They support acting selfishly (socially obnoxious) to some benefit to themselves at the expense of others; 2) They want everyone to fairly have access to that same benefit, as long as that does not interrupt their own benefit. Thus, the ‘obvious’ solution to ‘stock more Tejava’: it combines the selfishness of #1 and the moral high ground of #2 without requiring any extra effort or loss of benefit.