6 ms·

It's always fun seeing USians trying to shoehorn every variation of human behavior into the one-dimensional classification. (Seeing other Westerners confusedly

by aasasd 4y ago

It's always fun seeing USians trying to shoehorn every variation of human behavior into the one-dimensional classification. (Seeing other Westerners confusedly borrow the same dichotomy is also entertaining, as it often fits poorly to them and they surely should know better.)

criddell 4y ago
Is this a criticism of Vonnegut?
- aasasd 4y ago
  The only problem I might have with Vonnegut is that I could use more of his novels. Some of his books easily derail into author's explicit commentary on things—which is fun too in its own way, but leaves less space for more subtle jabs in the course of an actual plot.
bfors 4y ago
As a USian, it is not fun
sixo 4y ago
The words "left" and "right" are flimsy and one-dimensional for this purpose, but the basic dichotomy they're referring to in this context has deep roots in historical thinking: whether it's right for people to have whatever they can get vs what they need— with the choice of moral framework indicating who "deserves" status and advantages; the former being the meritocratic/libertarian/objectivist sense, or the latter the communist/liberal/christian sense. In either case "right" and "left" are poorly matched, but come on, you know what they're talking about.
Bakary 4y ago
I don't think this condescension is warranted for two reasons. Vonnegut operated this satire clearly within American cultural parameters and the dichotomy, though one-dimensional, is linked to many different foundational ideas in various cultures all across the world.
- aasasd 4y ago
  Alright, so I'm guessing when people have to give up personal freedom for collective values, it's called ‘leftist’, right? Like, freedom of personal expression and freedom over one's own body—so men are forbidden from growing out long hair and decorating themselves with trinkets, women have to look ‘womanly’ and to assume traditional matronly roles, homosexuality is outlaw, recreational drugs are criminal as damaging for the society at large. Likewise, people are precluded from spending their money as they see fit, and the state dictates what healthcare, schools, universities and other caregiving establishments look like, such that everybody pays taxes for them. People can't sell each other whatever they want, but have to follow invasive regulation by the state. This all is leftism.
  - Revery42 4y ago
    Leftists believe in egalitarianism, but this is very different from giving up personal freedom for collective values across the board. For one thing, leftists generally don't believe the collective values you've listed have value to begin with. It's also noteworthy that your examples target taking from those who already have less.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    I understand this criticism but I am not sure what you are posting it in response to or what arguments you are assigning to the discussion. My point is simply that the story focuses on an aspect of life of some emotional and philosophical significance and does what it sets out to do fairly well. It's not attempting to critique social norms as they precisely are but just the general concept of celebrating hierarchy vs. attempting to smooth it over.
    - aasasd 4y ago
      That's what I was getting at. As I see it, the story postulates a hardcore version of the ‘equality of outcome’ approach, particularly in the social aspect. I don't think anyone who's not completely marginalized subscribes to full-blown equality of outcome even just in the economic sense, much less in the social perspective. The US left do advocate for something resembling weak ‘equality of outcome’ in that poor and ill aren't thrown under the bus. However, while the left can be seen as reducing personal economic freedom, the oppression of social freedoms is a purview of conservatives. So ‘Harrison Bergeron’ is closer to a parody of a right-wing dreamland. Perhaps incels would in fact welcome an ‘equal outcome’ social world, where they are on the same level as Chads.
MajimasEyepatch 4y ago
> USians We have a word for this in English: Americans.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  He knows. It's bait and you swallowed it. This is the part where you get a lecture about Central and South America.
  - commandlinefan 4y ago
    My wife is Mexican. Us calling ourselves Americans drives her crazy (so I make a point, every time we visit her family in Mexico, of loudly declaring, "well, goodbye America!")
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      Latin Americans feeling perturbed by the 'American' demonym is certainly understandable. Nevertheless, I feel that 'USian', despite being motivated by an understandable disgruntlement, is used/proposed in bad faith for these reasons: 1) 'American' is the demonym a consensus majority of Americans have have chosen for themselves. 2) 'USian' only works in textual conversation, in spoken conversation it is one small mumble or tongue fumble away from 'US Asian' aka Asian-American. 3) Combining an uppercase initialism with a lowercase suffix is unnatural, not idiomatic English. The clumsiness of this term seems deliberate. 4) It is rarely used except in the context of bitter remarks about Americans (such as above.) These four factors combined lead me to conclude that the term exists and is primarily used for trolling Americans.
      - fallingknife 4y ago
        No it isn't understandable because they don't ever call themselves Americans. It's purely a pedantic and sanctimonious point.
  - russellbeattie 4y ago

by aasasd 4y ago

criddell 4y ago

Is this a criticism of Vonnegut?

aasasd 4y ago
The only problem I might have with Vonnegut is that I could use more of his novels. Some of his books easily derail into author's explicit commentary on things—which is fun too in its own way, but leaves less space for more subtle jabs in the course of an actual plot.

bfors 4y ago

As a USian, it is not fun

sixo 4y ago

The words "left" and "right" are flimsy and one-dimensional for this purpose, but the basic dichotomy they're referring to in this context has deep roots in historical thinking: whether it's right for people to have whatever they can get vs what they need— with the choice of moral framework indicating who "deserves" status and advantages; the former being the meritocratic/libertarian/objectivist sense, or the latter the communist/liberal/christian sense. In either case "right" and "left" are poorly matched, but come on, you know what they're talking about.

Bakary 4y ago

I don't think this condescension is warranted for two reasons. Vonnegut operated this satire clearly within American cultural parameters and the dichotomy, though one-dimensional, is linked to many different foundational ideas in various cultures all across the world.

aasasd 4y ago
Alright, so I'm guessing when people have to give up personal freedom for collective values, it's called ‘leftist’, right? Like, freedom of personal expression and freedom over one's own body—so men are forbidden from growing out long hair and decorating themselves with trinkets, women have to look ‘womanly’ and to assume traditional matronly roles, homosexuality is outlaw, recreational drugs are criminal as damaging for the society at large. Likewise, people are precluded from spending their money as they see fit, and the state dictates what healthcare, schools, universities and other caregiving establishments look like, such that everybody pays taxes for them. People can't sell each other whatever they want, but have to follow invasive regulation by the state. This all is leftism.
- Revery42 4y ago
  Leftists believe in egalitarianism, but this is very different from giving up personal freedom for collective values across the board. For one thing, leftists generally don't believe the collective values you've listed have value to begin with. It's also noteworthy that your examples target taking from those who already have less.
- Bakary 4y ago
  I understand this criticism but I am not sure what you are posting it in response to or what arguments you are assigning to the discussion. My point is simply that the story focuses on an aspect of life of some emotional and philosophical significance and does what it sets out to do fairly well. It's not attempting to critique social norms as they precisely are but just the general concept of celebrating hierarchy vs. attempting to smooth it over.
  - aasasd 4y ago
    That's what I was getting at. As I see it, the story postulates a hardcore version of the ‘equality of outcome’ approach, particularly in the social aspect. I don't think anyone who's not completely marginalized subscribes to full-blown equality of outcome even just in the economic sense, much less in the social perspective. The US left do advocate for something resembling weak ‘equality of outcome’ in that poor and ill aren't thrown under the bus. However, while the left can be seen as reducing personal economic freedom, the oppression of social freedoms is a purview of conservatives. So ‘Harrison Bergeron’ is closer to a parody of a right-wing dreamland. Perhaps incels would in fact welcome an ‘equal outcome’ social world, where they are on the same level as Chads.

MajimasEyepatch 4y ago

> USians We have a word for this in English: Americans.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
He knows. It's bait and you swallowed it. This is the part where you get a lecture about Central and South America.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  My wife is Mexican. Us calling ourselves Americans drives her crazy (so I make a point, every time we visit her family in Mexico, of loudly declaring, "well, goodbye America!")
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Latin Americans feeling perturbed by the 'American' demonym is certainly understandable. Nevertheless, I feel that 'USian', despite being motivated by an understandable disgruntlement, is used/proposed in bad faith for these reasons: 1) 'American' is the demonym a consensus majority of Americans have have chosen for themselves. 2) 'USian' only works in textual conversation, in spoken conversation it is one small mumble or tongue fumble away from 'US Asian' aka Asian-American. 3) Combining an uppercase initialism with a lowercase suffix is unnatural, not idiomatic English. The clumsiness of this term seems deliberate. 4) It is rarely used except in the context of bitter remarks about Americans (such as above.) These four factors combined lead me to conclude that the term exists and is primarily used for trolling Americans.
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      No it isn't understandable because they don't ever call themselves Americans. It's purely a pedantic and sanctimonious point.
- russellbeattie 4y ago