4 ms·

As long as there is money and private property, i agree with your point. Jobs that nobody wants to do by pleasure should be the highest paid and most respected.

As long as there is money and private property, i agree with your point. Jobs that nobody wants to do by pleasure should be the highest paid and most respected. However that's not how capitalism works (quite the opposite). Like another commentator pointed out, i'm opposed to financial compensation (and all forms of money) as an organizing principle of society. However as long as money hasn't been abolished your point makes perfect sense. Specifically about COVID though, I don't know about where you are, but here in France "thank you" for health workers was perceived to be very insulting. Because when the government continues to dismantle all forms of public services and keeps on overworking hospital workers (most of whom have months or even years of paid vacations they could never take because of understaffing) and destroying all their social benefits, it's hard not to take this as "fuck you".

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> i'm opposed to financial compensation (and all forms of money) as an organizing principle of society. What does this mean? It is the nature of animals to evaluate and rank each other, least of all for mating purposes. Not using money will not change that, and another proxy will be used. > Specifically about COVID though, I don't know about where you are, but here in France "thank you" for health workers was perceived to be very insulting. It was the same in the US. The thank you and hero nonsense was seen through by all, but I guess plausible deniability is worth it amongst the managing class.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > It is the nature of animals to evaluate and rank each other Not at all. Competition is not the norm in the natural world. There's the entire field of ethology to study if you'd like to know more. If you need a quick intro, "Mutual Aid" by Peter Kropotkin is really dated science-wise (it's almost 120 years old) but is still a pretty good read. If you're into TV stuff, i'd recommend Adam Curtis' series "The trap" and "The century of the self" which explore the topics of how competition and self-interest have increasingly been guiding principles of (at the time) western societies and how we've tried to apply such principles (eg. game theory) to other fields where they in fact do not apply.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Primates and other mammals do it. Birds do it. Unless all those David Attenborough narrated shows I’ve watched are wrong or misinterpreted by me, there seems to be extensive use of competition in many species. Or one can look at data from myriad of dating apps and websites. I would not believe anyone if they told me they did not rank possible partners in life on a variety of metrics such as health, wealth, tribal affiliations (family/other network), intelligence, humor, etc.
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      Do some reading on the question and make an opinion for yourself. There is some competition throughout nature but it's really far from an organizing principle as it has become with the capitalist system. > I would not believe anyone if they told me they did not rank possible partners in life on a variety of metrics That sounds really close to the definition of a psychopath, and is definitely not how most people live their lives/relationships. Adam Curtis in "The trap" touches on this topic and how only psychopaths and economists used to behave like according to "measurable rational self-interest". With the commodification of everything (including oneself through social media) it's fair to bet more people behave like that nowadays than previously, but it's still really far from everyone. Why would you not believe me if i told you i have feelings and affinities that cannot be measured or ranked and do not reflect a material interest? Why is it so hard to accept that not everybody lives through live the same way that soulless suit-heads do?
      - silicon2401 5y ago
        You sound like you're arguing from a point of insecurity or emotion rather than making a rational argument. > Why would you not believe me if i told you i have feelings and affinities that cannot be measured or ranked and do not reflect a material interest? Why is it so hard to accept that not everybody lives through live the same way that soulless suit-heads do? Why would you not believe that I have a long, committed, happy relationship today that I arrived at through consciously ranking and evaluating qualities of my current partner and other people that I met? Why is it so hard for you to accept that humans are inherently judging and comparing creatures? Why do you think that to just think about important life choices like a partner doesn't make you a "soulless suit-head"? If you want to live your life that way, go ahead. The fact that you and even most people seem to let your subconscious steer you with important life decisions doesn't affect me. But I don't see why you have to indirectly call the other user names (psychopath, soulless suit-head) just because they do things differently than you. Are Indian and Chinese parents who perform arranged marriages also psychopaths or soulless suit-heads just because they choose matches for their children based on a variety of metrics? Does it make Chinese or Indian culture soulless or psychopathic since they've been doing this way before the "commodification of everything"?

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> i'm opposed to financial compensation (and all forms of money) as an organizing principle of society. What does this mean? It is the nature of animals to evaluate and rank each other, least of all for mating purposes. Not using money will not change that, and another proxy will be used. > Specifically about COVID though, I don't know about where you are, but here in France "thank you" for health workers was perceived to be very insulting. It was the same in the US. The thank you and hero nonsense was seen through by all, but I guess plausible deniability is worth it amongst the managing class.

southerntofu 5y ago
> It is the nature of animals to evaluate and rank each other Not at all. Competition is not the norm in the natural world. There's the entire field of ethology to study if you'd like to know more. If you need a quick intro, "Mutual Aid" by Peter Kropotkin is really dated science-wise (it's almost 120 years old) but is still a pretty good read. If you're into TV stuff, i'd recommend Adam Curtis' series "The trap" and "The century of the self" which explore the topics of how competition and self-interest have increasingly been guiding principles of (at the time) western societies and how we've tried to apply such principles (eg. game theory) to other fields where they in fact do not apply.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Primates and other mammals do it. Birds do it. Unless all those David Attenborough narrated shows I’ve watched are wrong or misinterpreted by me, there seems to be extensive use of competition in many species. Or one can look at data from myriad of dating apps and websites. I would not believe anyone if they told me they did not rank possible partners in life on a variety of metrics such as health, wealth, tribal affiliations (family/other network), intelligence, humor, etc.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    Do some reading on the question and make an opinion for yourself. There is some competition throughout nature but it's really far from an organizing principle as it has become with the capitalist system. > I would not believe anyone if they told me they did not rank possible partners in life on a variety of metrics That sounds really close to the definition of a psychopath, and is definitely not how most people live their lives/relationships. Adam Curtis in "The trap" touches on this topic and how only psychopaths and economists used to behave like according to "measurable rational self-interest". With the commodification of everything (including oneself through social media) it's fair to bet more people behave like that nowadays than previously, but it's still really far from everyone. Why would you not believe me if i told you i have feelings and affinities that cannot be measured or ranked and do not reflect a material interest? Why is it so hard to accept that not everybody lives through live the same way that soulless suit-heads do?
    - silicon2401 5y ago
      You sound like you're arguing from a point of insecurity or emotion rather than making a rational argument. > Why would you not believe me if i told you i have feelings and affinities that cannot be measured or ranked and do not reflect a material interest? Why is it so hard to accept that not everybody lives through live the same way that soulless suit-heads do? Why would you not believe that I have a long, committed, happy relationship today that I arrived at through consciously ranking and evaluating qualities of my current partner and other people that I met? Why is it so hard for you to accept that humans are inherently judging and comparing creatures? Why do you think that to just think about important life choices like a partner doesn't make you a "soulless suit-head"? If you want to live your life that way, go ahead. The fact that you and even most people seem to let your subconscious steer you with important life decisions doesn't affect me. But I don't see why you have to indirectly call the other user names (psychopath, soulless suit-head) just because they do things differently than you. Are Indian and Chinese parents who perform arranged marriages also psychopaths or soulless suit-heads just because they choose matches for their children based on a variety of metrics? Does it make Chinese or Indian culture soulless or psychopathic since they've been doing this way before the "commodification of everything"?