6 ms·

I think this is sadly very true - trying to actually be a kind person really limits how well you can play "the game". There's no good solution to this either -

I think this is sadly very true - trying to actually be a kind person really limits how well you can play "the game". There's no good solution to this either - if there was more kindness in the world, then that would just create even more opportunities for the people playing the game to get ahead, because they would have more victims to exploit.

draugadrotten 6y ago
One of the key solutions is that good people must reward other good people. Nurture the young good ones. Reward the good behaviour.
Maxion 6y ago
One key thing about the game is the definition of "being ahead", and in a way, the meaning you want your life to have. If the definition of being ahead is to work in upper management, or at trendy FAANG making a large amount of money then you are kind-of forced to play the game in order to "get ahead". However, if your version of getting ahead is to have a loving family, or to spend time on the hobbies you like or traveling or <insert other non-monetary thing here> then you can (and sometimes even have to) spend less effort on the game. I'm still working on finding my balance, but I've learned that I enjoy life much more when I'm doing something where I can spend less time playing the game, even if that comes with a large decrease in income and "prestige".
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > I'm still working on finding my balance, but I've learned that I enjoy life much more when I'm doing something where I can spend less time playing the game, even if that comes with a large decrease in income and "prestige". Unfortunately in the US, if you don’t play the game, you have greatly reduced access to healthcare, which is a huge incentive to play the game especially if you have kids.
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    This is not simply "unfortunate", it's done on purpose. People who are not able or willing to earn money under the existing economic system are denied food, housing, clothing, healthcare, legal representation...
  - floor2 6y ago
    1) This isn't even true in general. Aside from optional things like cosmetic surgery which you need to pay for out of pocket, the people on the taxpayer-subsidized obamacare bronze-level packages have access to the same doctors, facilities and treatments as people with high incomes and high quality employer-sponsored insurance plans. The only difference is deductibles and copays, which might vary by a few thousand dollars in the event of major surgery. 2) Even if it was true, is a society where freeloaders are rewarded equally to those who contribute a good thing or a just society? Healthcare, like all goods and services, comes from the labor of the working classes. It's perfectly fair and reasonable that the people working to pay for this (whether through insurance premiums, taxes, etc) receive the fruits of their labor, rather than having it siphoned away by non-contributing people.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Regarding #1, I meant that people can't afford it. Bronze plans are designed to only pay 60% of expected healthcare costs, and still cost $1k to $2k per month per family, and have an out of pocket cost of ~$13k+ per year. Generally, if your employer doesn't offer subsidized health insurance, then it means you're not paid much as it is, so adding premiums that cost $10k to $20k per year plus needing $13k per year saved for OOP costs (double that if you have a problem at the end of the calendar year) is a tall order. And yes, you get premium subsidies if you make less than a certain amount, but it's no where near a comfortable life. The government makes sure you are right on the edge of being able to afford the basics.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  What if I told you that desire to "travel" can be equally phony, a result of careful marketing tactics, a carrot on a stick. If only I had more money I'd travel the world and volunteer and become an Instagramer or Youtuber and just blog about the best places to get coconut water on the beach, that would be perfect. Now back to the office. As Zizek often says, ideology shows itself exactly in the ways that you try to one-up the ideology. When you long to escape the rat race, you have to immediately associate to something that is only attainable via doing the rat race itself and making money (e. g. Travel the world, beaches etc). It has to be firmly in dreamland. What the system doesn't want you to do: be frugal and marketing-resistant, demand payment relative to the value you provide, be satisfied with living in a normal house with a normal family, not craving products, being mentally self reliant, etc. There is no juice to squeeze out from such a person, but it might exactly be the kind of person your family and community would need. Not saying this would be your best option necessarily, you can definitely put up with getting squeezed a bit, but be conscious of it.
  - teucris 6y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but of all the dreams to pin your critique on, I’d recommend not using travel or public service. While there is definitely consumerist travel of the Instagram variety and plenty of misguided philanthropy, there’s a beautiful baby in that bathwater.
    - bonoboTP 6y ago
      There is, for sure. But we certainly have a tendency to dream of taking that great leap and saving all the children in Africa etc. I do see people from richer countries and families actually doing it, and posing with the African kids in Kenya on Facebook pretending it's something other than a vacation. (There are some articles on how this help is often useless or even positively counterproductive, only offset by the participation fee.) My point is not to shit on philanthropy though it's a bit more nuanced. So there are some who do go to save the kids a continent away, and who gave up their jobs and then go to travel the world, the interesting thing is not them, but why they are fascinating to the audience. It's all about "if only I could do that, then..." A dream, an outlet. And it has to be far away. How about this (nothing personal). When did you last talk with your family members' and friends' deep thoughts, fears, desires, worries and things of pride, cherished achievements, aspired goals etc. Not in an interrogation way, but naturally, while doing activities, cooking, fishing, sitting at the campfire. How many of them can you rely on to know yours? How often have you talked with your neighbors? How is your local community (street, apartment block) doing, what are the problems, is someone in need of help because their kid is sick? I found this articulated really well in Jordan Peterson's writing (I know, divisive guy). The point isn't to denounce faraway volunteering and a philanthropic traveler lifestyle. Rather that people are setting up dreams at a safe distance that they can then safely regard as unattainable. It's much more scary to think of helping people in your apartment block, because eww, those people are nasty they are loud, they cook smelly cabbage on Sundays, they are too dumb for your liking. If only you had some angelic far away people who are simply waiting for you as their savior, it would be so much easier. This kind of "set your house in order first" idea is upsetting, but humans and societies are complex enough that you have to get a feel for how things go wrong and how they go right, if you learn by setting yourself straight first, then attend to your family and close friends, then the community etc. Yes, your neighbor may betray you and always beg you for loans if you appear to philanthropic. True. You'll have the same issue when trying to hand out stuff to Ukrainians or the Syrians. Which group is the "good guys"? Are you being manipulated, etc.? It's complicated, but we can push it all away to dreamland by saying, one day, I will travel and have a beachfront house in Africa and help all the kids (or one of these). Till then, I hammer away to get that promotion. Again, travelling can be extremely beneficial if you have the right mindset and prepare. You can see different ways of living, different ways of thinking, mentalities, types of interactions. Or simply different sceneries than the one at home. But as someone who has traveled to some places and swam at beautiful beaches, it isn't all that euphoric in itself. Perhaps this is a "no shit, Sherlock" type of claim, but actually sunbathing on the Copacabana isn't that much better than sunbathing by the lakeside in Hungary (but one is more useful than the other in spiting your colleagues). It's more about the people you're bonding with while doing it. Plus if you actually interact with locals, but many just stay in their hotel resort. And you could indeed already do many facets of it at home, bringing your communities closer, but of course everything incentivizes us away from this. (People constantly move around etc.) (PS. I'm crap at all of the above and just ranting)
- uzakov 6y ago
  In some ways one goes alongside another, it's getting more difficult financially to have a loving family, do hobbies, travelling unless you earn enough money. You have to play the game a lot to be able to have things
- eswat 6y ago
  > However, if your version of getting ahead is to have a loving family, or to spend time on the hobbies you like or traveling or <insert other non-monetary thing here> then you can (and sometimes even have to) spend less effort on the game. Money – and thus at least understanding the game enough – is often a precursor to getting enjoyment out of those things though, to various degrees. Probably less so with family, if the dynmaics are healthy, but definitely more needed for certain hobbies and travel.
JoeDaDude 6y ago
There is an old joke about the game: Capitalism believes you can win the game. Communism believes you can tie the game. Religion believes that you can quit the game. But they are all wrong, because you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't even quit the game.
- kyuudou 6y ago
  Aha! but the way to win is not to play the game! Sorry, couldn't resist the dad joke.

draugadrotten 6y ago

One of the key solutions is that good people must reward other good people. Nurture the young good ones. Reward the good behaviour.

Maxion 6y ago

One key thing about the game is the definition of "being ahead", and in a way, the meaning you want your life to have. If the definition of being ahead is to work in upper management, or at trendy FAANG making a large amount of money then you are kind-of forced to play the game in order to "get ahead". However, if your version of getting ahead is to have a loving family, or to spend time on the hobbies you like or traveling or <insert other non-monetary thing here> then you can (and sometimes even have to) spend less effort on the game. I'm still working on finding my balance, but I've learned that I enjoy life much more when I'm doing something where I can spend less time playing the game, even if that comes with a large decrease in income and "prestige".

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> I'm still working on finding my balance, but I've learned that I enjoy life much more when I'm doing something where I can spend less time playing the game, even if that comes with a large decrease in income and "prestige". Unfortunately in the US, if you don’t play the game, you have greatly reduced access to healthcare, which is a huge incentive to play the game especially if you have kids.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  This is not simply "unfortunate", it's done on purpose. People who are not able or willing to earn money under the existing economic system are denied food, housing, clothing, healthcare, legal representation...
- floor2 6y ago
  1) This isn't even true in general. Aside from optional things like cosmetic surgery which you need to pay for out of pocket, the people on the taxpayer-subsidized obamacare bronze-level packages have access to the same doctors, facilities and treatments as people with high incomes and high quality employer-sponsored insurance plans. The only difference is deductibles and copays, which might vary by a few thousand dollars in the event of major surgery. 2) Even if it was true, is a society where freeloaders are rewarded equally to those who contribute a good thing or a just society? Healthcare, like all goods and services, comes from the labor of the working classes. It's perfectly fair and reasonable that the people working to pay for this (whether through insurance premiums, taxes, etc) receive the fruits of their labor, rather than having it siphoned away by non-contributing people.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Regarding #1, I meant that people can't afford it. Bronze plans are designed to only pay 60% of expected healthcare costs, and still cost $1k to $2k per month per family, and have an out of pocket cost of ~$13k+ per year. Generally, if your employer doesn't offer subsidized health insurance, then it means you're not paid much as it is, so adding premiums that cost $10k to $20k per year plus needing $13k per year saved for OOP costs (double that if you have a problem at the end of the calendar year) is a tall order. And yes, you get premium subsidies if you make less than a certain amount, but it's no where near a comfortable life. The government makes sure you are right on the edge of being able to afford the basics.
bonoboTP 6y ago
What if I told you that desire to "travel" can be equally phony, a result of careful marketing tactics, a carrot on a stick. If only I had more money I'd travel the world and volunteer and become an Instagramer or Youtuber and just blog about the best places to get coconut water on the beach, that would be perfect. Now back to the office. As Zizek often says, ideology shows itself exactly in the ways that you try to one-up the ideology. When you long to escape the rat race, you have to immediately associate to something that is only attainable via doing the rat race itself and making money (e. g. Travel the world, beaches etc). It has to be firmly in dreamland. What the system doesn't want you to do: be frugal and marketing-resistant, demand payment relative to the value you provide, be satisfied with living in a normal house with a normal family, not craving products, being mentally self reliant, etc. There is no juice to squeeze out from such a person, but it might exactly be the kind of person your family and community would need. Not saying this would be your best option necessarily, you can definitely put up with getting squeezed a bit, but be conscious of it.
- teucris 6y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but of all the dreams to pin your critique on, I’d recommend not using travel or public service. While there is definitely consumerist travel of the Instagram variety and plenty of misguided philanthropy, there’s a beautiful baby in that bathwater.
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    There is, for sure. But we certainly have a tendency to dream of taking that great leap and saving all the children in Africa etc. I do see people from richer countries and families actually doing it, and posing with the African kids in Kenya on Facebook pretending it's something other than a vacation. (There are some articles on how this help is often useless or even positively counterproductive, only offset by the participation fee.) My point is not to shit on philanthropy though it's a bit more nuanced. So there are some who do go to save the kids a continent away, and who gave up their jobs and then go to travel the world, the interesting thing is not them, but why they are fascinating to the audience. It's all about "if only I could do that, then..." A dream, an outlet. And it has to be far away. How about this (nothing personal). When did you last talk with your family members' and friends' deep thoughts, fears, desires, worries and things of pride, cherished achievements, aspired goals etc. Not in an interrogation way, but naturally, while doing activities, cooking, fishing, sitting at the campfire. How many of them can you rely on to know yours? How often have you talked with your neighbors? How is your local community (street, apartment block) doing, what are the problems, is someone in need of help because their kid is sick? I found this articulated really well in Jordan Peterson's writing (I know, divisive guy). The point isn't to denounce faraway volunteering and a philanthropic traveler lifestyle. Rather that people are setting up dreams at a safe distance that they can then safely regard as unattainable. It's much more scary to think of helping people in your apartment block, because eww, those people are nasty they are loud, they cook smelly cabbage on Sundays, they are too dumb for your liking. If only you had some angelic far away people who are simply waiting for you as their savior, it would be so much easier. This kind of "set your house in order first" idea is upsetting, but humans and societies are complex enough that you have to get a feel for how things go wrong and how they go right, if you learn by setting yourself straight first, then attend to your family and close friends, then the community etc. Yes, your neighbor may betray you and always beg you for loans if you appear to philanthropic. True. You'll have the same issue when trying to hand out stuff to Ukrainians or the Syrians. Which group is the "good guys"? Are you being manipulated, etc.? It's complicated, but we can push it all away to dreamland by saying, one day, I will travel and have a beachfront house in Africa and help all the kids (or one of these). Till then, I hammer away to get that promotion. Again, travelling can be extremely beneficial if you have the right mindset and prepare. You can see different ways of living, different ways of thinking, mentalities, types of interactions. Or simply different sceneries than the one at home. But as someone who has traveled to some places and swam at beautiful beaches, it isn't all that euphoric in itself. Perhaps this is a "no shit, Sherlock" type of claim, but actually sunbathing on the Copacabana isn't that much better than sunbathing by the lakeside in Hungary (but one is more useful than the other in spiting your colleagues). It's more about the people you're bonding with while doing it. Plus if you actually interact with locals, but many just stay in their hotel resort. And you could indeed already do many facets of it at home, bringing your communities closer, but of course everything incentivizes us away from this. (People constantly move around etc.) (PS. I'm crap at all of the above and just ranting)
uzakov 6y ago
In some ways one goes alongside another, it's getting more difficult financially to have a loving family, do hobbies, travelling unless you earn enough money. You have to play the game a lot to be able to have things
eswat 6y ago
> However, if your version of getting ahead is to have a loving family, or to spend time on the hobbies you like or traveling or <insert other non-monetary thing here> then you can (and sometimes even have to) spend less effort on the game. Money – and thus at least understanding the game enough – is often a precursor to getting enjoyment out of those things though, to various degrees. Probably less so with family, if the dynmaics are healthy, but definitely more needed for certain hobbies and travel.

JoeDaDude 6y ago

There is an old joke about the game: Capitalism believes you can win the game. Communism believes you can tie the game. Religion believes that you can quit the game. But they are all wrong, because you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't even quit the game.

kyuudou 6y ago
Aha! but the way to win is not to play the game! Sorry, couldn't resist the dad joke.