4 ms·

I'm sure people understand the message. They just don't agree. My reading of the article is that the author is spending a lot of words on saying "Look, this is

by glogla 4y ago

I'm sure people understand the message. They just don't agree. My reading of the article is that the author is spending a lot of words on saying "Look, this is why being selfish asshole is actually good! And if you don't let me be selfish, you're actually the asshole! You should award empathy to privileged people first, they deserve it more!" which is terrible message, even if the article was well written, which it isn't. It was already disgusting message about hiking, the moment the author said "you can also apply this to poverty and obesity" he crossed the moral event horizon. Both on hike and in society you have duty and responsibility for others - and that includes slowing down for them when necessary, both physically and metaphorically.

the_omegist 4y ago
> It was already disgusting message about hiking Your strong and emotional reaction made me read the article (thanks for that) and it makes your statement even stranger. What is disgusting in saying that the majority/the average can exercise a moral tyranny on the individual that is above the average by virtue of its sheer number? The author is right in saying that, by prioritizing the slowest, you penalize the fastest. This is not a moral opinion, just pure logic. > the moment the author said "you can also apply this to poverty and obesity" he crossed the moral event horizon. Again, you're getting outraged over what seems, to me, a very practical and healthy reasoning : "If someone is standing on a slope, you don't just offer them your hand and let them hold on indefinitely, wasting both people's energy, because you will soon both fall down. You should instead get them on solid ground instead, and get them to move better on their own. If someone wants sympathy and aid but rejects offers of working on a solution, that means they don't want to expend any effort in solving it themselves." What did you want him to say? That your duty is to sacrifice yourself for others' well-being even if they don't do most of the work themselves?
- glogla 4y ago
  I am not sure, why you are using words like "emotional" and "outraged". The problem with the article is that it glorifies selfish attitude, which leads to uncaring, individualist, exploitative and toxic society. The author is proud of not caring about anyone but himself, and he wraps that into layers of disingenuous and faulty logic to prove how that is actually good. > What did you want him to say? That your duty is to sacrifice yourself for others' well-being even if they don't do most of the work themselves? I don't know why you would use such loaded (and emotional) word as "sacrifice". But yes. That is how society works. The author isn't willing to perform even basic functions of person living in society - like walking slower when hiking in a group. Is walking slower a sacrifice? Is paying taxes to fund roads a sacrifice? Is paying taxes that fund social safety net a sacrifice? Where exactly does cooperation and consensus becomes a sacrifice?
  - ajkjk 4y ago
    Reminder that the author is criticizing the naivety of the advice "If you're hiking and you stop to let other people catch up, don't start walking immediately when they arrive.", rather than the actual action of doing that thing when it's actually appropriate.

by glogla 4y ago

the_omegist 4y ago

> It was already disgusting message about hiking Your strong and emotional reaction made me read the article (thanks for that) and it makes your statement even stranger. What is disgusting in saying that the majority/the average can exercise a moral tyranny on the individual that is above the average by virtue of its sheer number? The author is right in saying that, by prioritizing the slowest, you penalize the fastest. This is not a moral opinion, just pure logic. > the moment the author said "you can also apply this to poverty and obesity" he crossed the moral event horizon. Again, you're getting outraged over what seems, to me, a very practical and healthy reasoning : "If someone is standing on a slope, you don't just offer them your hand and let them hold on indefinitely, wasting both people's energy, because you will soon both fall down. You should instead get them on solid ground instead, and get them to move better on their own. If someone wants sympathy and aid but rejects offers of working on a solution, that means they don't want to expend any effort in solving it themselves." What did you want him to say? That your duty is to sacrifice yourself for others' well-being even if they don't do most of the work themselves?

glogla 4y ago
I am not sure, why you are using words like "emotional" and "outraged". The problem with the article is that it glorifies selfish attitude, which leads to uncaring, individualist, exploitative and toxic society. The author is proud of not caring about anyone but himself, and he wraps that into layers of disingenuous and faulty logic to prove how that is actually good. > What did you want him to say? That your duty is to sacrifice yourself for others' well-being even if they don't do most of the work themselves? I don't know why you would use such loaded (and emotional) word as "sacrifice". But yes. That is how society works. The author isn't willing to perform even basic functions of person living in society - like walking slower when hiking in a group. Is walking slower a sacrifice? Is paying taxes to fund roads a sacrifice? Is paying taxes that fund social safety net a sacrifice? Where exactly does cooperation and consensus becomes a sacrifice?
- ajkjk 4y ago
  Reminder that the author is criticizing the naivety of the advice "If you're hiking and you stop to let other people catch up, don't start walking immediately when they arrive.", rather than the actual action of doing that thing when it's actually appropriate.