4 ms·

I am arguing against the use of the "It's that narrative" phrase that is said like someone is playing a trump card and for some reason just makes other argument

I am arguing against the use of the "It's that narrative" phrase that is said like someone is playing a trump card and for some reason just makes other arguments null and void. Sorry if I misinterpreted your response, I assumed you thought similarly to others that have posted using that phrase and I tried to engage in a discussion to push for you to explain your reasoning and consider alternatives. I don't assume anything about you except that you are more likely than not like me and many others on this forum, extremely fortunate. I too have experienced that bottom rung and I'm tired of the zuckerberg like hubris that some have in our community where people act like they are disrupting the world for better in cases where they disrupt incumbents by scaling exploitation of that power rung. I try to push back on it when I can to show different perspectives. To me, the dismissal of the plight of Amazon workers and the lower class is one and the same. Amazon is new to the game, but they approach everything with ruthless cunning.

kodah 6y ago
You can argue for class representation but it doesn't need to be a component of every argument. Here, it was needlessly interjected and is distracting to the main point. You did assume things about me and that was wrong. You "and others" have to share this forum with a great many people, people who come from both prestigious backgrounds and people without. If you want to convince someone of something then you end up having to speak to them on their turf. You can't engage in moralizing language or act condescendingly, as you did me. It tunes people out and makes them perpetual enemies of not just you, but your cause. This obsession with talk of power is very murky and non-descriptive. Even the class-warfare talk is murky. They're not points you're going to win with conservatives if that's the discussion you're thinking you're going to offer "different perspectives" on. When I talk to conservatives I talk to them about economics on their level. They have poor people too, Democrats spent years making fun of their "poor and uneducated". On Friday I had a manager tell me all about how "blue collar and uneducated" people in the South are a problem, simply because I'm from the South. It was astonishing rhetoric, but not uncommon from certain communities. Nobody will listen to garbage like that and I certainly wouldn't if I were them. Instead, I talk to conservatives about how the education system misses the mark when it comes to portions of the population, which includes them and liberals, and how better education is a driving force in not only a better economy but their lower classes as well. Assuming people don't have empathy for the poor is where people get things twisted. Many people who present arguments that tow a hard-line on economics came from tough backgrounds as well. In their worldview, the world is a tough-to-survive place and that is just a fact of life to them. Upending that worldview can't be done with moralism, shame, or guilt. It must be addressed through understanding and empathy, none of which you would've communicated in your earlier response.
- bostonsre 6y ago
  > You can argue for class representation but it doesn't need to be a component of every argument. Here, it was needlessly interjected and is distracting to the main point. I think the class narrative is extremely pertinent to this discussion. The "meh, if you don't like it, don't work there" type of argument when applied to this article doesn't hold as much water when there aren't much better alternatives for drivers like this to make as much money. > Yeah, this is a bit narrative-y. This comment and others in this post that summarily dismisses an argument because it is part of a "narrative" kind of forces one to make assumptions. This shortly worded retort made me assume that you fell into the hyper capitalist/anti raising minimum wage type crowd. The only assumption I made about you was that you were currently more than likely a tech worker that was more well off than the majority of society. I argue against the tech savior complex where large tech companies can do no wrong whenever I can. > Assuming people don't have empathy for the poor is where people get things twisted. Many people who present arguments that tow a hard-line on economics came from tough backgrounds as well. In their worldview, the world is a tough-to-survive place and that is just a fact of life to them. Upending that worldview can't be done with moralism, shame, or guilt. It must be addressed through understanding and empathy, none of which you would've communicated in your earlier response. I disagree that my comments did not touch on empathy. My whole point was to describe the viewpoints from the various cogs in the machine with an eye towards establishing empathy for those cogs and the shitty position each of those cogs is in. I absolutely agree that high level conservative/progressive talking points that are shouted at the opposing side does nothing except to further tribalize the two opposing viewpoints. The political party abstractions used to justify policies abstract out the humans that are impacted by those policies and they make it easier for people to stay adamant that they are correct and the other side is wrong. "Moralism, shame, or guilt" have a lot of overlap with empathy. One does not have shame or guilt without empathy and if someone feels shame or guilt for a given topic, then to me that sounds like progress and compromise are attainable. The only route that I see to stopping this tribalism bullshit is with using empathy to humanize both sides in an attempt to help people realize that we are all on the same team (unless someone is some sociopath that is on their own team). I'm not sure I completely understand why my points were so offensive for you specifically. I honestly meant no offense and did not think that attempting to establish empathy would be a controversial argument path.

kodah 6y ago

You can argue for class representation but it doesn't need to be a component of every argument. Here, it was needlessly interjected and is distracting to the main point. You did assume things about me and that was wrong. You "and others" have to share this forum with a great many people, people who come from both prestigious backgrounds and people without. If you want to convince someone of something then you end up having to speak to them on their turf. You can't engage in moralizing language or act condescendingly, as you did me. It tunes people out and makes them perpetual enemies of not just you, but your cause. This obsession with talk of power is very murky and non-descriptive. Even the class-warfare talk is murky. They're not points you're going to win with conservatives if that's the discussion you're thinking you're going to offer "different perspectives" on. When I talk to conservatives I talk to them about economics on their level. They have poor people too, Democrats spent years making fun of their "poor and uneducated". On Friday I had a manager tell me all about how "blue collar and uneducated" people in the South are a problem, simply because I'm from the South. It was astonishing rhetoric, but not uncommon from certain communities. Nobody will listen to garbage like that and I certainly wouldn't if I were them. Instead, I talk to conservatives about how the education system misses the mark when it comes to portions of the population, which includes them and liberals, and how better education is a driving force in not only a better economy but their lower classes as well. Assuming people don't have empathy for the poor is where people get things twisted. Many people who present arguments that tow a hard-line on economics came from tough backgrounds as well. In their worldview, the world is a tough-to-survive place and that is just a fact of life to them. Upending that worldview can't be done with moralism, shame, or guilt. It must be addressed through understanding and empathy, none of which you would've communicated in your earlier response.

bostonsre 6y ago
> You can argue for class representation but it doesn't need to be a component of every argument. Here, it was needlessly interjected and is distracting to the main point. I think the class narrative is extremely pertinent to this discussion. The "meh, if you don't like it, don't work there" type of argument when applied to this article doesn't hold as much water when there aren't much better alternatives for drivers like this to make as much money. > Yeah, this is a bit narrative-y. This comment and others in this post that summarily dismisses an argument because it is part of a "narrative" kind of forces one to make assumptions. This shortly worded retort made me assume that you fell into the hyper capitalist/anti raising minimum wage type crowd. The only assumption I made about you was that you were currently more than likely a tech worker that was more well off than the majority of society. I argue against the tech savior complex where large tech companies can do no wrong whenever I can. > Assuming people don't have empathy for the poor is where people get things twisted. Many people who present arguments that tow a hard-line on economics came from tough backgrounds as well. In their worldview, the world is a tough-to-survive place and that is just a fact of life to them. Upending that worldview can't be done with moralism, shame, or guilt. It must be addressed through understanding and empathy, none of which you would've communicated in your earlier response. I disagree that my comments did not touch on empathy. My whole point was to describe the viewpoints from the various cogs in the machine with an eye towards establishing empathy for those cogs and the shitty position each of those cogs is in. I absolutely agree that high level conservative/progressive talking points that are shouted at the opposing side does nothing except to further tribalize the two opposing viewpoints. The political party abstractions used to justify policies abstract out the humans that are impacted by those policies and they make it easier for people to stay adamant that they are correct and the other side is wrong. "Moralism, shame, or guilt" have a lot of overlap with empathy. One does not have shame or guilt without empathy and if someone feels shame or guilt for a given topic, then to me that sounds like progress and compromise are attainable. The only route that I see to stopping this tribalism bullshit is with using empathy to humanize both sides in an attempt to help people realize that we are all on the same team (unless someone is some sociopath that is on their own team). I'm not sure I completely understand why my points were so offensive for you specifically. I honestly meant no offense and did not think that attempting to establish empathy would be a controversial argument path.