6 ms·

>At best as a society itself, it's a drum circle, getting high, talking about the universe without doing anything much, and escaping. People have different val

>At best as a society itself, it's a drum circle, getting high, talking about the universe without doing anything much, and escaping. People have different values. Long ago we forgot that if it's not shown on mtv as something to aspire towards it's not the best pursuit of our time. All the best chasing that lambo you'll never afford whilst looking over your shoulder at others smart enough not to get into that game.

noduerme 5y ago
You're talking to someone who lived on the road for 10+ years and spent plenty of time in music circles on beaches discussing the nature of the universe. All of which came to very little. I don't work and earn to chase a new car. I do it to give my life meaning and to afford a good future for myself and my family. And yeah, I have every right to look down at the people who think they're being so smart by "not getting in that game". Even on the road, I always worked. I didn't do drugs regularly. And I never begged. I wasn't a parasite, like so many. Often, other travelers would look down on me for that. Where are they now? Lying in ditches, muttering to themselves.
- aunty_helen 5y ago
  >You're talking to someone who lived on the road for 10+ years >I have every right >I always worked. I didn't do drugs regularly. And I never begged. I wasn't a parasite, like so many >Where are they now? Lying in ditches, muttering to themselves. Dude, you're a narcissist. You're free to change your values over time but no one else is? Maybe the next person squatting in your town square is a former you. Once again, people have different values. Maybe that leads them to your hypothetical ditch, maybe it gives them motivation to be like yourself. Or maybe they find happyness some other way.
  - craftinator 5y ago
    > Dude, you're a narcissist. You're free to change your values over time but no one else is? Maybe the next person squatting in your town square is a former you. This was exactly what was going through my head while reading their post. That, or that they are making up a BS backstory to gain some sort of credibility, but there is no point in that sort of speculating.
  - codebolt 5y ago
    If someones choice of values leads them to wilfully and proudly become a parasite and a burden to the people around them, then they are the ones with the mental disorder.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    > Maybe the next person squatting in your town square is a former you. Maybe they are! And if they are, eventually I hope they stop listening to the romantic rubbish about what "freedom" consists of and what capitalist society owes them, as spewed by the leaders of camps and troupes who are mainly interested in keeping a parasitic lifestyle surrounded by runaway girls and boys who'll do what they say. Those visionary camp leaders are the real narcissists. This one gives his game away when he talks about how he should be the one to manage the shit show when money is abolished. It's all wankerish nihilism dressed up as Marxist dialectics, with the dialectic controlled by someone with slightly more reading than their followers. FWIW, I upvoted this comment. I agree it's fine for people to have different values. Eventually, me-on-a-beach will hopefully find values that lead toward self-actualization and personal growth, and away from sloth and the bitterness and wasted time of jealousy towards people who have more. In the interim I don't blame them, I just think their philosophy is childish and poorly conceived. If that makes me a narcissist, so be it.
- brudgers 5y ago
  Is that logically distinct from sitting at a desk muttering to HN?
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Is lying in a ditch distinct to sitting at a desk? I'd venture yes.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  It is realy easy to look down on people for all kinds of reasons. It is much harder to empathize with the challenges and point of views that are alien to your perspective. Our society needs more people willing to take on that challenge instead of allowing their own insecurities to drive them into contempt.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    There's a difference between being empathetic to those that have problems and need help and those that choose knowingly to opt out of the surface level of the system while still receiving its benefits. While GP comment may be painting groups with an overly broad brush, I'm not sure I see any fault with the criticism of the specific type of person they describe, which does exist, even if it may not be all of that group (or even a sizable minority). Any policy that is followed, such as "help and show empathy for those less fortunate" should be actually examined and understood, not just blindly applied. People that wish to participate in society but have fallen on hard times deserve our sympathy and help. People that have health problems that cause their situation deserve our sympathy and help. People that decide to opt out of most of our society and so remove themselves from most of the society deserve our respect, or at least our ambivalence. People that say they want to opt out of society but really just don't want to give anything to society (whether that's time, effort, restraint, whatever) but want to get some benefit of society deserve our scorn. Far too many people get stuck following the actions of an ideology rather than the precepts. Not everyone that appears homeless is "less fortunate" in their own eyes, and giving to them is not necessarily helping in a way that the precept of helping those less fortunate espouses, but instead a way to trick yourself into thinking you are doing something good without having to put thought into whether you actually are. In general, we could all do with a lot more introspection as to what our actions are actually doing and whether they serve the purpose we think they are. As a side benefit, a lot of bullshit from both sides of the political spectrum wouldn't survive the light of day some critical thought brings.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      You seem to be aligning me with one side or the other. I think my criticism applies equally to the people who look down on people for particpating in the system as to those who call them parasites. Critical rational thought can take you all sorts of violent and negative places if you don't make an effort to pair it with empathy and a genuine effort to understand the perspectives of those you are tempted to despise. Giving in to "rational" dehumanization and hatred is not going to actually help anything and will probably make things worse.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  I have know a lot of homelessness. In 99.99% of the cases, they weren't homeless by choice, or ideology. But yes--most of them thought they were there by choice. It must be some ego defense mechanism? For some reason a disproportionate amount were former Programmers? I knew Jim Fox. He was a cocreator of Wordstar, but got zero credit. I watched him slip from employment to wearing a Penguin outfit playing a ukleee begging for change. We used to talk tech, and he would notice someone walking towards us. He would jump out, and do his dance. He was always positive. He once got a job. He went to Goodwill to buy a suit. (He thought he needed a suit for a startup.) He was fired a few days in. That whole cultural fit. He always used to tell me, I just hope I don't die of pneumonia in an alley. Well he didn't get his wish. He died homeless. There is a saying amoung homeless, and it's this, "Homeless for a year, homeless for life." Meaning the mind is gone after living like they do. I have watched our local police departments make there guys life more miserable for 30 years. I'm glad you weren't an entrenched homeless person. The homeless we have need help. Most are not their by choice if you get them to let their guard down. I do have some hope in CA. The government might actually do something besides jaw boning about what needs to be done. Besides long term shelter, I hear talk of safe places to park, and sleep, without getting a ticket, or worse? Homeless in Dunphy Park, got tickets for not obeying a rule. The ticket was $500. The issuing officer told the IJ, fee is high because we know they won't ever pay it. I just threw up my hands. How is issuing a ticket that can eventually turn into a warrant helping out anyone? I done. I'm starting to get angry. Homelessness has always been a sore spot for myself.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    This is a thoughtful answer. I should be clear that I draw a bright distinction between young traveling punks sleeping rough (often by choice) and people who are long-term homeless not by choice. I knew a lot of the former, but only encountered some of the latter as the graybeards in mostly young communities. And I'd say most of them still had some choice, they just didn't see a reason to go back to normal society. I'm just objecting to the glorification of homelessness as an ethos, and the diminution of people who work as a consequence. I'm not saying the ethos is responsible for all or even most homelessness. It can, and does, draw some intelligent people into making really bad decisions, though. I'd also add that I've known many people living rough who were happy to have work, and worked hard when they could. And I don't include them in any of what I'm saying about the ethics of surviving on other people's charity, because they indeed did not wish to.
willhinsa 5y ago
There's a huge difference between "chasing that lambo" and working to build and keep a stable environment for your family, community, and society.
- brudgers 5y ago
  The people in the park are part of the community and a societal element.
- aunty_helen 5y ago
  Please don't think I meant literally saving money to buy a lambo. More a general trend towards unhealthy materialism that is seen as only being a positive. ie my bank account is bigger than yours beause I'm better than you.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
leephillips 5y ago
“People have different values.” That’s for sure. The values of the poster you’re replying to are better than the values of a professional parasite.
- Retric 5y ago
  A parasite he may be, but people can do a lot more harm as part of the economy than that. It’s simply a question of leverage, even something as seemingly pleasant as Disney World causes significant direct and indirect ecological harm in ways a homeless person doesn’t. And frankly you can find plenty of far worse examples than Disney World.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    This is pure whataboutism.
    - Retric 5y ago
      “you can't produce anything new to help anyone.” Suggests only economic activity is a benefit, as if talking to another person or giving a hug can’t enrich their lives. Pointing out a moral standpoint is more harmful than what’s being criticized is hardly whataboutism. It’s a demonstration that taking part in the economy is not inherently superior rather than the posters personal preference. Which therefore directly counters their morality argument.
      - Chris2048 5y ago
        What moral standpoint does Disneyland represent? You've far from proved the net harm of Disneyland, but what has that got to do with homelessness in BC? > It’s a demonstration that taking part in the economy is not inherently superior sure, but this is a straw-man. The proposition isn't that participating in the economy is automatically of greater value, it's that not participating (other than to leech off it) produces non. > directly counters their morality argument It's possible to oppose this guy and Disneyland.

noduerme 5y ago

You're talking to someone who lived on the road for 10+ years and spent plenty of time in music circles on beaches discussing the nature of the universe. All of which came to very little. I don't work and earn to chase a new car. I do it to give my life meaning and to afford a good future for myself and my family. And yeah, I have every right to look down at the people who think they're being so smart by "not getting in that game". Even on the road, I always worked. I didn't do drugs regularly. And I never begged. I wasn't a parasite, like so many. Often, other travelers would look down on me for that. Where are they now? Lying in ditches, muttering to themselves.

aunty_helen 5y ago
>You're talking to someone who lived on the road for 10+ years >I have every right >I always worked. I didn't do drugs regularly. And I never begged. I wasn't a parasite, like so many >Where are they now? Lying in ditches, muttering to themselves. Dude, you're a narcissist. You're free to change your values over time but no one else is? Maybe the next person squatting in your town square is a former you. Once again, people have different values. Maybe that leads them to your hypothetical ditch, maybe it gives them motivation to be like yourself. Or maybe they find happyness some other way.
- craftinator 5y ago
  > Dude, you're a narcissist. You're free to change your values over time but no one else is? Maybe the next person squatting in your town square is a former you. This was exactly what was going through my head while reading their post. That, or that they are making up a BS backstory to gain some sort of credibility, but there is no point in that sort of speculating.
- codebolt 5y ago
  If someones choice of values leads them to wilfully and proudly become a parasite and a burden to the people around them, then they are the ones with the mental disorder.
- noduerme 5y ago
  > Maybe the next person squatting in your town square is a former you. Maybe they are! And if they are, eventually I hope they stop listening to the romantic rubbish about what "freedom" consists of and what capitalist society owes them, as spewed by the leaders of camps and troupes who are mainly interested in keeping a parasitic lifestyle surrounded by runaway girls and boys who'll do what they say. Those visionary camp leaders are the real narcissists. This one gives his game away when he talks about how he should be the one to manage the shit show when money is abolished. It's all wankerish nihilism dressed up as Marxist dialectics, with the dialectic controlled by someone with slightly more reading than their followers. FWIW, I upvoted this comment. I agree it's fine for people to have different values. Eventually, me-on-a-beach will hopefully find values that lead toward self-actualization and personal growth, and away from sloth and the bitterness and wasted time of jealousy towards people who have more. In the interim I don't blame them, I just think their philosophy is childish and poorly conceived. If that makes me a narcissist, so be it.
brudgers 5y ago
Is that logically distinct from sitting at a desk muttering to HN?
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Is lying in a ditch distinct to sitting at a desk? I'd venture yes.
shkkmo 5y ago
It is realy easy to look down on people for all kinds of reasons. It is much harder to empathize with the challenges and point of views that are alien to your perspective. Our society needs more people willing to take on that challenge instead of allowing their own insecurities to drive them into contempt.
- kbenson 5y ago
  There's a difference between being empathetic to those that have problems and need help and those that choose knowingly to opt out of the surface level of the system while still receiving its benefits. While GP comment may be painting groups with an overly broad brush, I'm not sure I see any fault with the criticism of the specific type of person they describe, which does exist, even if it may not be all of that group (or even a sizable minority). Any policy that is followed, such as "help and show empathy for those less fortunate" should be actually examined and understood, not just blindly applied. People that wish to participate in society but have fallen on hard times deserve our sympathy and help. People that have health problems that cause their situation deserve our sympathy and help. People that decide to opt out of most of our society and so remove themselves from most of the society deserve our respect, or at least our ambivalence. People that say they want to opt out of society but really just don't want to give anything to society (whether that's time, effort, restraint, whatever) but want to get some benefit of society deserve our scorn. Far too many people get stuck following the actions of an ideology rather than the precepts. Not everyone that appears homeless is "less fortunate" in their own eyes, and giving to them is not necessarily helping in a way that the precept of helping those less fortunate espouses, but instead a way to trick yourself into thinking you are doing something good without having to put thought into whether you actually are. In general, we could all do with a lot more introspection as to what our actions are actually doing and whether they serve the purpose we think they are. As a side benefit, a lot of bullshit from both sides of the political spectrum wouldn't survive the light of day some critical thought brings.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    You seem to be aligning me with one side or the other. I think my criticism applies equally to the people who look down on people for particpating in the system as to those who call them parasites. Critical rational thought can take you all sorts of violent and negative places if you don't make an effort to pair it with empathy and a genuine effort to understand the perspectives of those you are tempted to despise. Giving in to "rational" dehumanization and hatred is not going to actually help anything and will probably make things worse.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
I have know a lot of homelessness. In 99.99% of the cases, they weren't homeless by choice, or ideology. But yes--most of them thought they were there by choice. It must be some ego defense mechanism? For some reason a disproportionate amount were former Programmers? I knew Jim Fox. He was a cocreator of Wordstar, but got zero credit. I watched him slip from employment to wearing a Penguin outfit playing a ukleee begging for change. We used to talk tech, and he would notice someone walking towards us. He would jump out, and do his dance. He was always positive. He once got a job. He went to Goodwill to buy a suit. (He thought he needed a suit for a startup.) He was fired a few days in. That whole cultural fit. He always used to tell me, I just hope I don't die of pneumonia in an alley. Well he didn't get his wish. He died homeless. There is a saying amoung homeless, and it's this, "Homeless for a year, homeless for life." Meaning the mind is gone after living like they do. I have watched our local police departments make there guys life more miserable for 30 years. I'm glad you weren't an entrenched homeless person. The homeless we have need help. Most are not their by choice if you get them to let their guard down. I do have some hope in CA. The government might actually do something besides jaw boning about what needs to be done. Besides long term shelter, I hear talk of safe places to park, and sleep, without getting a ticket, or worse? Homeless in Dunphy Park, got tickets for not obeying a rule. The ticket was $500. The issuing officer told the IJ, fee is high because we know they won't ever pay it. I just threw up my hands. How is issuing a ticket that can eventually turn into a warrant helping out anyone? I done. I'm starting to get angry. Homelessness has always been a sore spot for myself.
- noduerme 5y ago
  This is a thoughtful answer. I should be clear that I draw a bright distinction between young traveling punks sleeping rough (often by choice) and people who are long-term homeless not by choice. I knew a lot of the former, but only encountered some of the latter as the graybeards in mostly young communities. And I'd say most of them still had some choice, they just didn't see a reason to go back to normal society. I'm just objecting to the glorification of homelessness as an ethos, and the diminution of people who work as a consequence. I'm not saying the ethos is responsible for all or even most homelessness. It can, and does, draw some intelligent people into making really bad decisions, though. I'd also add that I've known many people living rough who were happy to have work, and worked hard when they could. And I don't include them in any of what I'm saying about the ethics of surviving on other people's charity, because they indeed did not wish to.

willhinsa 5y ago

There's a huge difference between "chasing that lambo" and working to build and keep a stable environment for your family, community, and society.

brudgers 5y ago
The people in the park are part of the community and a societal element.
aunty_helen 5y ago
Please don't think I meant literally saving money to buy a lambo. More a general trend towards unhealthy materialism that is seen as only being a positive. ie my bank account is bigger than yours beause I'm better than you.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

leephillips 5y ago

“People have different values.” That’s for sure. The values of the poster you’re replying to are better than the values of a professional parasite.

Retric 5y ago
A parasite he may be, but people can do a lot more harm as part of the economy than that. It’s simply a question of leverage, even something as seemingly pleasant as Disney World causes significant direct and indirect ecological harm in ways a homeless person doesn’t. And frankly you can find plenty of far worse examples than Disney World.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  This is pure whataboutism.
  - Retric 5y ago
    “you can't produce anything new to help anyone.” Suggests only economic activity is a benefit, as if talking to another person or giving a hug can’t enrich their lives. Pointing out a moral standpoint is more harmful than what’s being criticized is hardly whataboutism. It’s a demonstration that taking part in the economy is not inherently superior rather than the posters personal preference. Which therefore directly counters their morality argument.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      What moral standpoint does Disneyland represent? You've far from proved the net harm of Disneyland, but what has that got to do with homelessness in BC? > It’s a demonstration that taking part in the economy is not inherently superior sure, but this is a straw-man. The proposition isn't that participating in the economy is automatically of greater value, it's that not participating (other than to leech off it) produces non. > directly counters their morality argument It's possible to oppose this guy and Disneyland.