7 ms·

>* As an American, that speaks volumes about our lifestyle and culture, and I find it disappointing. Satisfaction is contagious; I want to live among others who

>* As an American, that speaks volumes about our lifestyle and culture, and I find it disappointing. Satisfaction is contagious; I want to live among others who feel this way. Most of my friends work from home and are either alone most of the time, or have significant others but few friends whom they see on an active basis.* This puts into words my motivation to enact policies that would free up time and resources for people to better optimize or remove unnecessary weight from their lives. Whether it be healthcare, childcare, rising rents, etc. – the time-suck nature or just constant level of financial stress created by some issues weighs on the individual psyche, and in turn the collective one. When you can't leave your job because of healthcare, need the money for childcare or to service debt or pay rising rents, of course personal life and overall outlook on life take a hit. I may not live in a cycle like that, but I don't want to walk down the street knowing how common it is among the people around me. Death by a thousand cuts, it seems like. And yes, much of this lives at the societal / cultural level as well, not purely the political. But in my opinion the collective burden of the problems that can be fixed by political means imposes an inertia on life that drags everything else down with it.

throwaway2331 5y ago
Very nuanced take; I agree. Unfortunately, it's impossible for the societal / cultural to progress at all without having the free time and tranquility-of-psyche to actually reflect on life. Concurrent is a severe lack of noblesse oblige in the U.S. The highest strata has forgotten its cultural roots, and lacks spiritual depth in this age. Take for example Beatrice Webb calling Andrew Carnegie a "reptile" -- a time-honored tradition. Now, there is a complete lack of self-policing within the betters, a la "Michael O. Church."
- gretch 5y ago
  "Unfortunately, it's impossible for the societal / cultural to progress at all without having the free time and tranquility-of-psyche to actually reflect on life." I mean, this take isn't wrong, but it implies that society isn't the best it's ever been. People used to have to work themselves to the bone resisting death by nature. Some people have to work 2 jobs, maybe 60 or 70 hour weeks - that sucks, but it's still better than literally being a serf. "Concurrent is a severe lack of noblesse oblige in the U.S. The highest strata has forgotten its cultural roots, and lacks spiritual depth in this age." When has noblesse oblige ever been a main proponent of change? I don't think there was noblesse oblige during the french revolution. Did Webb's spatter with Carnegie _do_ anything? I feel like rich people have spatters all the time, none of it material to actual cultural change
  - SQueeeeeL 5y ago
    "Some people have to work 2 jobs, maybe 60 or 70 hour weeks - that sucks, but it's still better than literally being a serf." This is definitely someone who was never in desperate poverty, lol
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Spoken like someone who has never been a serf.
    - gretch 5y ago
      I mean, you are kinda flippantly dismissing my claim... do you disagree? You would rather be a serf? Today we have all of modern technology to help us - we have vaccines for debilitating diseases. If you break your leg, you don't just die... And even the lowest class of people can afford smartphones and access the internet. These are all vast and material improvements to quality of life
      - throwaway2331 5y ago
        Having been in that position, I can genuinely say I would rather be a Russian serf, absolutely illiterate and uneducated, knowing nothing at all about how destitute my conditions are, than being in the position I am today (or especially in the position I once was). That reminds me of a major example of noblesse oblige: the emancipation of all serfs by Alexander II. Many went on to own and operate factories, and improve their material circumstances greatly (before Stalin destroyed it all) -- but some did not. And those that did not were likely spiritually worse-off being factory-hands working directly for a petit bourgeoise. Whether or not this event was good or bad is subjective to one's personal values.
        rmah 5y ago
        If you think serfs did not know how destitute they were because they were "illiterate and uneducated", then you have a far too rosy view of history. If you were in their shoes, you would have clearly known how desperately poor you were. You knew because they lived in a hovel and can only heat it when it gets super cold. You knew because you saw a child starve to death after a bad harvest because you don't have any money to buy food for them. You knew because you only have a few sets of crappy clothing and holes in your shoes but can't afford to buy new ones. You knew because your mother died from a painful illness dies because you can't afford the medication. You knew because, despite being a serf, despite being uneducated, you are not a complete moron.

throwaway2331 5y ago

Very nuanced take; I agree. Unfortunately, it's impossible for the societal / cultural to progress at all without having the free time and tranquility-of-psyche to actually reflect on life. Concurrent is a severe lack of noblesse oblige in the U.S. The highest strata has forgotten its cultural roots, and lacks spiritual depth in this age. Take for example Beatrice Webb calling Andrew Carnegie a "reptile" -- a time-honored tradition. Now, there is a complete lack of self-policing within the betters, a la "Michael O. Church."

gretch 5y ago
"Unfortunately, it's impossible for the societal / cultural to progress at all without having the free time and tranquility-of-psyche to actually reflect on life." I mean, this take isn't wrong, but it implies that society isn't the best it's ever been. People used to have to work themselves to the bone resisting death by nature. Some people have to work 2 jobs, maybe 60 or 70 hour weeks - that sucks, but it's still better than literally being a serf. "Concurrent is a severe lack of noblesse oblige in the U.S. The highest strata has forgotten its cultural roots, and lacks spiritual depth in this age." When has noblesse oblige ever been a main proponent of change? I don't think there was noblesse oblige during the french revolution. Did Webb's spatter with Carnegie _do_ anything? I feel like rich people have spatters all the time, none of it material to actual cultural change
- SQueeeeeL 5y ago
  "Some people have to work 2 jobs, maybe 60 or 70 hour weeks - that sucks, but it's still better than literally being a serf." This is definitely someone who was never in desperate poverty, lol
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Spoken like someone who has never been a serf.
  - gretch 5y ago
    I mean, you are kinda flippantly dismissing my claim... do you disagree? You would rather be a serf? Today we have all of modern technology to help us - we have vaccines for debilitating diseases. If you break your leg, you don't just die... And even the lowest class of people can afford smartphones and access the internet. These are all vast and material improvements to quality of life
    - throwaway2331 5y ago
      Having been in that position, I can genuinely say I would rather be a Russian serf, absolutely illiterate and uneducated, knowing nothing at all about how destitute my conditions are, than being in the position I am today (or especially in the position I once was). That reminds me of a major example of noblesse oblige: the emancipation of all serfs by Alexander II. Many went on to own and operate factories, and improve their material circumstances greatly (before Stalin destroyed it all) -- but some did not. And those that did not were likely spiritually worse-off being factory-hands working directly for a petit bourgeoise. Whether or not this event was good or bad is subjective to one's personal values.
      - rmah 5y ago
        If you think serfs did not know how destitute they were because they were "illiterate and uneducated", then you have a far too rosy view of history. If you were in their shoes, you would have clearly known how desperately poor you were. You knew because they lived in a hovel and can only heat it when it gets super cold. You knew because you saw a child starve to death after a bad harvest because you don't have any money to buy food for them. You knew because you only have a few sets of crappy clothing and holes in your shoes but can't afford to buy new ones. You knew because your mother died from a painful illness dies because you can't afford the medication. You knew because, despite being a serf, despite being uneducated, you are not a complete moron.