5 ms·

> Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves ... the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good Exactly, most

by umvi 5y ago

> Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves ... the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good Exactly, most people don't get this. This is exactly why I am vicious, cruel, and unkind to the employees of my small business - it seems counter intuitive, but I'm actually doing them the least harm this way, and so I'm actually optimizing for their long term happiness. They should be thanking me. /logic

Spivak 5y ago
I mean it’s cute quip but this isn’t what that quote means and you know that. [From the perspective of someone trying to abolish slavery] kind slavers are the worst because they make the situation just tolerable enough that people aren’t motivated to change the system. [From the perspective of an individual slave] kind slavers are the best because they suffer the least. Kind slavers force a system settle on a local minimum of suffering rather than a global one.
- umvi 5y ago
  > [From the perspective of someone trying to abolish slavery] kind slavers are the worst because they make the situation just tolerable enough that people aren’t motivated to change the system. Who says kind slavers weren't also helping to change the system? It's a pretty big assumption that all kind slavers were only being kind to keep their slaves from being uppity. Re: George Washington
  - Mizza 5y ago
    Wow.
  - ysavir 5y ago
    I think the assumption is that if kind slave owner wanted to help change the system, they would probably start by freeing their own slaves.
    - bzbarsky 5y ago
      > they would probably start by freeing their own slaves. Depends on the meaning of "own". Quoting from https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/martha-washington-as-a-slaveowner/ https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/martha... > After George and Martha Washington married in 1759, she took many of these people with her to Mount Vernon. As property of the Custis estate, they could not legally be freed or sold, and were inherited by the Custis heirs upon Martha Washington’s death. In this case, Martha Washington owned the rights to the labor of the people involved until she died, but did not own the people themselves; the Custis estate did. (Now what she would have done if she did own them outright is a separate issue, of course. Nothing suggests she would have freed them.)
      - refenestrator 5y ago
        The capital was Philadelphia while Washington was president. Philly had a law that slaves who resided there for a year were freed, so Washington established a rotation system to make sure he had slaves around for help but didn't have to free them.
        bzbarsky 5y ago
        So to be clear, there were two separate sets of slaves involved: 1) The ones owned by George Washington himself. He did not free these while alive; he did have a will that said that once Martha died they were free. That is, he did not free them until he (1) made use of their labor himself and (2) ensured that what he viewed as his financial obligations to Martha upon his death were satisfied. Obviously this is not a hard-line abolitionist stance, and I do wonder what he would have done if he had living children when he died. As it was, he just had living step-grandchildren (kids of Martha's son from her previous marriage; the son had died earlier and George and Martha had raised his kids). 2) The ones owned by the Custis estate. Those could not be freed unilaterally by either George or Martha. They were inherited by the above-mentioned step-grandchildren when Martha died. What would happen for people in set 2 if they were in Philadelphia for more than a year is a legal question I don't have an answer for... The most plausible way to reconcile the various legal bits I can think of is that they would be free but then Martha (or George? family property law in 1700s Virginia is not my strong suit) would owe restitution to the Custis estate for the lost value or something like that?
glenstein 5y ago
The point is that it's a false choice, not that you should enthusiastically lean into one side of it or the other.
gruez 5y ago
That's actually a thing people unironically believe. it's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
- BlueTankEngine 5y ago
  That is left-wing accelerationism, not liberal-accelerationism or right-wing accelerationism. Important distinction cause they are completely different.
- ebcode 5y ago
  I used to say, "It's always darkest before the dawn, so bring on the darkness." My younger self is quite happy with the way things are going, but my present self thinks my younger self is a fool.
dudeman13 5y ago
Pretty sure the quote has something to do with the prolongation of the status quo (and therefore holding back improvement) instead of the individual slave-owner being better/worse. I don't think a poet/playwright would ever roll with "the expected utility is less due to preventing a change to the status quo" instead of the original quote.
- da_chicken 5y ago
  Plus, it's Oscar Wilde. He's more tongue-in-cheek than the champion of a lengua eating contest.
carabiner 5y ago
> viscous Is this typo becoming more common? OP, why would you be sticky and slow moving around these people?
raxxorrax 5y ago
You didn't understand the argument, it is about the carrot and stick and how the carrot can materialize. The style is a bit offensive to get people to maybe look for the horizon...

by umvi 5y ago

Spivak 5y ago

I mean it’s cute quip but this isn’t what that quote means and you know that. [From the perspective of someone trying to abolish slavery] kind slavers are the worst because they make the situation just tolerable enough that people aren’t motivated to change the system. [From the perspective of an individual slave] kind slavers are the best because they suffer the least. Kind slavers force a system settle on a local minimum of suffering rather than a global one.

umvi 5y ago
> [From the perspective of someone trying to abolish slavery] kind slavers are the worst because they make the situation just tolerable enough that people aren’t motivated to change the system. Who says kind slavers weren't also helping to change the system? It's a pretty big assumption that all kind slavers were only being kind to keep their slaves from being uppity. Re: George Washington
- Mizza 5y ago
  Wow.
- ysavir 5y ago
  I think the assumption is that if kind slave owner wanted to help change the system, they would probably start by freeing their own slaves.
  - bzbarsky 5y ago
    > they would probably start by freeing their own slaves. Depends on the meaning of "own". Quoting from https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/martha-washington-as-a-slaveowner/ https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/martha... > After George and Martha Washington married in 1759, she took many of these people with her to Mount Vernon. As property of the Custis estate, they could not legally be freed or sold, and were inherited by the Custis heirs upon Martha Washington’s death. In this case, Martha Washington owned the rights to the labor of the people involved until she died, but did not own the people themselves; the Custis estate did. (Now what she would have done if she did own them outright is a separate issue, of course. Nothing suggests she would have freed them.)
    - refenestrator 5y ago
      The capital was Philadelphia while Washington was president. Philly had a law that slaves who resided there for a year were freed, so Washington established a rotation system to make sure he had slaves around for help but didn't have to free them.
      - bzbarsky 5y ago
        So to be clear, there were two separate sets of slaves involved: 1) The ones owned by George Washington himself. He did not free these while alive; he did have a will that said that once Martha died they were free. That is, he did not free them until he (1) made use of their labor himself and (2) ensured that what he viewed as his financial obligations to Martha upon his death were satisfied. Obviously this is not a hard-line abolitionist stance, and I do wonder what he would have done if he had living children when he died. As it was, he just had living step-grandchildren (kids of Martha's son from her previous marriage; the son had died earlier and George and Martha had raised his kids). 2) The ones owned by the Custis estate. Those could not be freed unilaterally by either George or Martha. They were inherited by the above-mentioned step-grandchildren when Martha died. What would happen for people in set 2 if they were in Philadelphia for more than a year is a legal question I don't have an answer for... The most plausible way to reconcile the various legal bits I can think of is that they would be free but then Martha (or George? family property law in 1700s Virginia is not my strong suit) would owe restitution to the Custis estate for the lost value or something like that?

glenstein 5y ago

The point is that it's a false choice, not that you should enthusiastically lean into one side of it or the other.

gruez 5y ago

That's actually a thing people unironically believe. it's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

BlueTankEngine 5y ago
That is left-wing accelerationism, not liberal-accelerationism or right-wing accelerationism. Important distinction cause they are completely different.
ebcode 5y ago
I used to say, "It's always darkest before the dawn, so bring on the darkness." My younger self is quite happy with the way things are going, but my present self thinks my younger self is a fool.

dudeman13 5y ago

Pretty sure the quote has something to do with the prolongation of the status quo (and therefore holding back improvement) instead of the individual slave-owner being better/worse. I don't think a poet/playwright would ever roll with "the expected utility is less due to preventing a change to the status quo" instead of the original quote.

da_chicken 5y ago
Plus, it's Oscar Wilde. He's more tongue-in-cheek than the champion of a lengua eating contest.

carabiner 5y ago

> viscous Is this typo becoming more common? OP, why would you be sticky and slow moving around these people?

raxxorrax 5y ago

You didn't understand the argument, it is about the carrot and stick and how the carrot can materialize. The style is a bit offensive to get people to maybe look for the horizon...