3 ms·

How do you empower someone without helping them?

blonde_ocean 6y ago
Good Q. I think it’s a nuanced distinction. Helping too much can too often lead to a lack of empowerment, IMO. The idea that you can’t help yourself, so you must be led along by another as if you were a child. I think empowerment requires helping, but helping through “nudges,” if that makes sense
- pixelbash 6y ago
  In the context of a system where it's almost impossible to lose money above a certain point and almost impossible to make money below a certain point (edit: without doing something reckless, which often happens).. No this does not make sense to me.
  - jquery 6y ago
    > In the context of a system where it's almost impossible to lose money above a certain point and almost impossible to make money below a certain point Whether you believe we live in such a system seems like a matter of opinion and outlook.
  - lucaspm98 6y ago
    You may be being slightly hyperbolic, but in either case I would doubt that is a majority-held opinion.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  I wonder if there's a correlation there, where for some people they think that offering any help is by definition paternalistic? "As if they were a child", as in believing that only children need help.
nickpp 6y ago
You create a system in which they can help themselves while the others have a vested interest in helping them raise. It’s called capitalism.
bart_spoon 6y ago
I don't think conservatives/Republicans are strictly against helping anyone, they just disagree on the method. The historically conservative view has been to try and give them a job through which they can support themselves as opposed to a "handout" through a social program. On paper I think they would describe it as the equivalent of "teaching a man to fish" vs "giving a man a fish". Obviously there is a lot of room for skepticism as to whether you think the approach works in practice, or if the approach is simply a front to enact changes that will nominally benefit the unempowered but in reality benefit the empowered. But I don't know of many who aren't in favor of something as vague as "helping people", and most genuinely believe they are doing so.
- rayiner 6y ago
  It’s more than that. Conservatives think that liberal social and economic ideas actively destroy the infrastructure people rely on to help themselves. An example of this is marriage. Liberals have sought to normalize divorce and the raising children outside of marriage. Both of those things are empirically proven to make people poorer—for obvious reasons. Indeed, welfare benefits are often structured to disincentivize marriage, which in turn keeps people poor. Liberals often don’t appreciate that conservative social and economic views are synergistic like that.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    I'd be interested in hearing more about what liberals have done to "normalize" divorce. A conservative movement genuinely interested in making sure children are raised in wedlock could endorse routine family planning and reproductive health services, rather than building an entire totalizing culture war out of opposition to them. Otherwise, it's hard to imagine a policy more antithetical to our founding principles than one that compels the reluctant unwed parents of unwanted children to marry. These issues didn't seem to bother Ben Franklin too much. But: fair enough! A liberal.
  - tunesmith 6y ago
    Can you post an example of how welfare benefits are structured to disincentivize marriage? I also think this is an example of how conservatives and progressives talk past each other. There's a difference between being in favor of divorce, and being in favor of recognizing that there are situations where divorce is a better option than staying married. Also, there's a difference between being in favor of raising children outside of marriage, and being in favor of an unmarried person or family raising an existing child that would otherwise not be raised by anyone.
claytongulick 6y ago
By providing them with opportunity?

Good Q. I think it’s a nuanced distinction. Helping too much can too often lead to a lack of empowerment, IMO. The idea that you can’t help yourself, so you must be led along by another as if you were a child. I think empowerment requires helping, but helping through “nudges,” if that makes sense

pixelbash 6y ago
In the context of a system where it's almost impossible to lose money above a certain point and almost impossible to make money below a certain point (edit: without doing something reckless, which often happens).. No this does not make sense to me.
- jquery 6y ago
  > In the context of a system where it's almost impossible to lose money above a certain point and almost impossible to make money below a certain point Whether you believe we live in such a system seems like a matter of opinion and outlook.
- lucaspm98 6y ago
  You may be being slightly hyperbolic, but in either case I would doubt that is a majority-held opinion.
tunesmith 6y ago
I wonder if there's a correlation there, where for some people they think that offering any help is by definition paternalistic? "As if they were a child", as in believing that only children need help.

nickpp 6y ago

You create a system in which they can help themselves while the others have a vested interest in helping them raise. It’s called capitalism.

bart_spoon 6y ago

I don't think conservatives/Republicans are strictly against helping anyone, they just disagree on the method. The historically conservative view has been to try and give them a job through which they can support themselves as opposed to a "handout" through a social program. On paper I think they would describe it as the equivalent of "teaching a man to fish" vs "giving a man a fish". Obviously there is a lot of room for skepticism as to whether you think the approach works in practice, or if the approach is simply a front to enact changes that will nominally benefit the unempowered but in reality benefit the empowered. But I don't know of many who aren't in favor of something as vague as "helping people", and most genuinely believe they are doing so.

rayiner 6y ago
It’s more than that. Conservatives think that liberal social and economic ideas actively destroy the infrastructure people rely on to help themselves. An example of this is marriage. Liberals have sought to normalize divorce and the raising children outside of marriage. Both of those things are empirically proven to make people poorer—for obvious reasons. Indeed, welfare benefits are often structured to disincentivize marriage, which in turn keeps people poor. Liberals often don’t appreciate that conservative social and economic views are synergistic like that.
- tptacek 6y ago
  I'd be interested in hearing more about what liberals have done to "normalize" divorce. A conservative movement genuinely interested in making sure children are raised in wedlock could endorse routine family planning and reproductive health services, rather than building an entire totalizing culture war out of opposition to them. Otherwise, it's hard to imagine a policy more antithetical to our founding principles than one that compels the reluctant unwed parents of unwanted children to marry. These issues didn't seem to bother Ben Franklin too much. But: fair enough! A liberal.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  Can you post an example of how welfare benefits are structured to disincentivize marriage? I also think this is an example of how conservatives and progressives talk past each other. There's a difference between being in favor of divorce, and being in favor of recognizing that there are situations where divorce is a better option than staying married. Also, there's a difference between being in favor of raising children outside of marriage, and being in favor of an unmarried person or family raising an existing child that would otherwise not be raised by anyone.

claytongulick 6y ago

By providing them with opportunity?