6 ms·

This is literally everyone's job. It's the whole point of society. Everyone is "fundamentally unsafe", and we all rely on each other.

by lantry 2y ago

kiba 2y ago
We may not be responsible for people's behaviors but it's certainly not going to get better if nobody do anything about it.
baobabKoodaa 2y ago
[flagged]
- hengheng 2y ago
  > This is the most extreme left viewpoint I have ever heard in my life. In that case I suggest more exposure to viewpoints that aren't similar to your own.
  - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
    If that's all you have to say on this, then I whole heartedly recommend the same to you as well.
    - CooCooCaCha 2y ago
      Please enumerate some right wing perspectives that we should learn about. I’m curious.
      - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
        I'm not here to promote "right wing" ideology or any other political agenda. I'm stating - as a matter of fact - that different people have different jobs and different responsibilities. I'm also stating - as an opinion - that that's okay.
- m_fayer 2y ago
  I agree that it’s an outlier viewpoint but I’d love it if we moved past categorizing everything along this cartoonish left-right axis. How about: “deep within a humanist paradigm” categorization, or something like that.
  - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
    I'm tired of this insane political activism that permeates everything, and I don't want to play dress up with it. I rather call it out when I see it.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      You'd fight political activism using more political activism?
      - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
        If it's political activism to say "different people can have different jobs and that's okay", then so be it. What a controversial take, I know...
        jpdenford 2y ago
        I think you’re taking the “job” bit too literally. As someone else said, “responsibility” might be a better term. We all act (vote, talk, help, purchase etc) and have the ability to do so in a way which is ethically informed. You could say it’s everyone’s responsibility to make sure that the important jobs are being done by someone.
        baobabKoodaa 2y ago
        Yes, we all have a various moral obligations. Do all of us have a "responsibility" to make the world safe for our most vulnerable individuals? No. A barista will make a hot coffee when asked, knowing it can hurt people who might spill it. A barista does not have a "responsibility" to make only medium-heated coffee. At the same time, there are people in the world who try to make good tradeoffs with regards to coffee temperature (e.g. MacDonalds corporate, or lawmakers setting an upper limit to allowed coffee temp). So at the same time, one person might make an effort to make coffee safe for vulnerable persons, while another person might just have a responsibility to serve coffee at whatever temperature was decided by the other people. Different people can have different responsibilities in the world.
- Zardoz89 2y ago
  Carpenters try to solve those problems. When it’s their mother or their son. Unless you believe empathy is a political alignment, a sad and confusing world for you.
  - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
    I never said "no carpenter" tries to solve mental problems for mentally troubled people. I said it's fine if "a carpenter" just focuses on carpentry instead of people. Of course some carpenters can focus on both, that's great. But it's not everybody's job. This is just a factually accurate statement about the world. Every single person on this planet does not have the same job.
    - 8note 2y ago
      Everyone shares many jobs, like clothing themselves, breathing, eating, and using toilets. Being a carpenter is not the only job a carpenter has
      - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
        Everyone needs to do the "job" of "breathing", yes. Everyone does not need to do the job of "sheltering mentally unstable people", no.
- itishappy 2y ago
  We can have more than one job: If you have kids, that's a job. If you have pets, that's a job. If you maintain a social circle, that's a job. If you have a job, that's also a job. I'd argue it's your job to restrain from stabbing random strangers in the street. Maybe "responsibility" is a better term, or maybe that's too strong too. You're not going to be paid for many of these things or penalized if you don't, but living a life outside of any expectations towards other people does not a healthy society create.
  - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
    > I'd argue it's your job to restrain from stabbing random strangers in the street. Sure, I agree with you, we all have a responsibility to restrain ourselves from stabbing random people in the street. Do we all have a responsibility to make the world "safe" for the most vulnerable people amongst us? No. It's great that we have some people working on that, like mental health professionals, or city councilmembers, but every single person does not and should not work on that particular thing.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    >I'd argue it's your job to restrain from stabbing random strangers in the street. It's not my job to restrain others from doing that.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  Only on HN would an essentially Hobbesian view ("society is an optimal solution to individual human weaknesses") be labeled "extreme left" :-) (Leviathan, XIII).
  - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
    > Only on HN would an essentially Hobbesian view ("society is an optimal solution to individual human weaknesses") be labeled "extreme left" Now you're just trying to twist my words to make it appear as if I said something which I didn't say. I don't agree with that statement. I would not label the words "society is an optimal solution to individual human weaknesses" as "extreme left". Society can be an optimal solution to individual human weaknesses while different people perform different functions within society. Don't smear me again.
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      It's not a "smear." Besides, you're the one bandying "extreme left" around. I think if you read "job" to mean "social obligation" or "responsibility," you'll understand that the GP's statement is essentially the Hobbesian one. If you read it to mean "the thing someone pays you to do," you'll get a very silly (and obviously incorrect) argument.
      - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
        > I think if you read "job" to mean "social obligation" or "responsibility," you'll understand that the GP's statement is essentially the Hobbesian one Let's read it as "responsibility". No, I don't agree with you on the statement being equivalent to what you wrote earlier. Different people can have different responsibilities in the world. "Making things safe for our most vulnerable individuals" is not a responsibility that belongs to literally every person in the world. It's okay if someone just makes furniture that's safe for the average person, while it has a sharp edge that can hurt a mentally unstable person.
        deleted 2y ago
- claytongulick 2y ago
  > This is the most extreme left viewpoint I have ever heard in my life. I hope this is hyperbolic. >> This is literally everyone's job. It's the whole point of society. If viewed through a political lense, I can see how you'd interpret it as a left-leaning ideology. If viewed objectively with the best possible interpretation, I think the statement is factually correct - we banded together, like most pack animals, for mutual security.
  - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
    > we banded together, like most pack animals, for mutual security Every animal in our pack does not share the same responsibilities. Different animals can perform different functions within the pack.
claytongulick 2y ago
> This is literally everyone's job. It's the whole point of society. To a degree, yes - but I think if it's taken too far it becomes a trap that many people seeking power lay out. Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That being said, I do agree with part of your point. The purpose of having a society is that collective action lets us do amazing things like build airplanes, that would be otherwise impossible. In order to succeed at that we need some rules that everyone plays by, which involve giving up some freedoms - or the "social contract". The more of a safety net a society provides, the more restrictive the society must be. Optimizing for this is known as politics. I think history has shown us that the proper balance is one where we optimize for maximum elbow room, without letting people die on the streets. Trying to provide the illusion of safety and restrict interesting technology to protect a small percentage of the population is on the wrong side of this balance. Maybe we try it, and see what the effect actually are, rather than guessing. If it becomes a major problem, then address it - in the least restrictive way possible.
- iudqnolq 2y ago
  Fun fact, that quote has been entirely misinterpreted. > He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it. > It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means. https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

This is literally everyone's job. It's the whole point of society. Everyone is "fundamentally unsafe", and we all rely on each other.

by lantry 2y ago

This is literally everyone's job. It's the whole point of society. Everyone is "fundamentally unsafe", and we all rely on each other.

kiba 2y ago

We may not be responsible for people's behaviors but it's certainly not going to get better if nobody do anything about it.

baobabKoodaa 2y ago

[flagged]

hengheng 2y ago
> This is the most extreme left viewpoint I have ever heard in my life. In that case I suggest more exposure to viewpoints that aren't similar to your own.
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  If that's all you have to say on this, then I whole heartedly recommend the same to you as well.
  - CooCooCaCha 2y ago
    Please enumerate some right wing perspectives that we should learn about. I’m curious.
    - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
      I'm not here to promote "right wing" ideology or any other political agenda. I'm stating - as a matter of fact - that different people have different jobs and different responsibilities. I'm also stating - as an opinion - that that's okay.
m_fayer 2y ago
I agree that it’s an outlier viewpoint but I’d love it if we moved past categorizing everything along this cartoonish left-right axis. How about: “deep within a humanist paradigm” categorization, or something like that.
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  I'm tired of this insane political activism that permeates everything, and I don't want to play dress up with it. I rather call it out when I see it.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    You'd fight political activism using more political activism?
    - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
      If it's political activism to say "different people can have different jobs and that's okay", then so be it. What a controversial take, I know...
      - jpdenford 2y ago
        I think you’re taking the “job” bit too literally. As someone else said, “responsibility” might be a better term. We all act (vote, talk, help, purchase etc) and have the ability to do so in a way which is ethically informed. You could say it’s everyone’s responsibility to make sure that the important jobs are being done by someone.
        baobabKoodaa 2y ago
        Yes, we all have a various moral obligations. Do all of us have a "responsibility" to make the world safe for our most vulnerable individuals? No. A barista will make a hot coffee when asked, knowing it can hurt people who might spill it. A barista does not have a "responsibility" to make only medium-heated coffee. At the same time, there are people in the world who try to make good tradeoffs with regards to coffee temperature (e.g. MacDonalds corporate, or lawmakers setting an upper limit to allowed coffee temp). So at the same time, one person might make an effort to make coffee safe for vulnerable persons, while another person might just have a responsibility to serve coffee at whatever temperature was decided by the other people. Different people can have different responsibilities in the world.
Zardoz89 2y ago
Carpenters try to solve those problems. When it’s their mother or their son. Unless you believe empathy is a political alignment, a sad and confusing world for you.
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  I never said "no carpenter" tries to solve mental problems for mentally troubled people. I said it's fine if "a carpenter" just focuses on carpentry instead of people. Of course some carpenters can focus on both, that's great. But it's not everybody's job. This is just a factually accurate statement about the world. Every single person on this planet does not have the same job.
  - 8note 2y ago
    Everyone shares many jobs, like clothing themselves, breathing, eating, and using toilets. Being a carpenter is not the only job a carpenter has
    - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
      Everyone needs to do the "job" of "breathing", yes. Everyone does not need to do the job of "sheltering mentally unstable people", no.
itishappy 2y ago
We can have more than one job: If you have kids, that's a job. If you have pets, that's a job. If you maintain a social circle, that's a job. If you have a job, that's also a job. I'd argue it's your job to restrain from stabbing random strangers in the street. Maybe "responsibility" is a better term, or maybe that's too strong too. You're not going to be paid for many of these things or penalized if you don't, but living a life outside of any expectations towards other people does not a healthy society create.
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  > I'd argue it's your job to restrain from stabbing random strangers in the street. Sure, I agree with you, we all have a responsibility to restrain ourselves from stabbing random people in the street. Do we all have a responsibility to make the world "safe" for the most vulnerable people amongst us? No. It's great that we have some people working on that, like mental health professionals, or city councilmembers, but every single person does not and should not work on that particular thing.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  >I'd argue it's your job to restrain from stabbing random strangers in the street. It's not my job to restrain others from doing that.
woodruffw 2y ago
Only on HN would an essentially Hobbesian view ("society is an optimal solution to individual human weaknesses") be labeled "extreme left" :-) (Leviathan, XIII).
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  > Only on HN would an essentially Hobbesian view ("society is an optimal solution to individual human weaknesses") be labeled "extreme left" Now you're just trying to twist my words to make it appear as if I said something which I didn't say. I don't agree with that statement. I would not label the words "society is an optimal solution to individual human weaknesses" as "extreme left". Society can be an optimal solution to individual human weaknesses while different people perform different functions within society. Don't smear me again.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    It's not a "smear." Besides, you're the one bandying "extreme left" around. I think if you read "job" to mean "social obligation" or "responsibility," you'll understand that the GP's statement is essentially the Hobbesian one. If you read it to mean "the thing someone pays you to do," you'll get a very silly (and obviously incorrect) argument.
    - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
      > I think if you read "job" to mean "social obligation" or "responsibility," you'll understand that the GP's statement is essentially the Hobbesian one Let's read it as "responsibility". No, I don't agree with you on the statement being equivalent to what you wrote earlier. Different people can have different responsibilities in the world. "Making things safe for our most vulnerable individuals" is not a responsibility that belongs to literally every person in the world. It's okay if someone just makes furniture that's safe for the average person, while it has a sharp edge that can hurt a mentally unstable person.
      - deleted 2y ago
claytongulick 2y ago
> This is the most extreme left viewpoint I have ever heard in my life. I hope this is hyperbolic. >> This is literally everyone's job. It's the whole point of society. If viewed through a political lense, I can see how you'd interpret it as a left-leaning ideology. If viewed objectively with the best possible interpretation, I think the statement is factually correct - we banded together, like most pack animals, for mutual security.
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  > we banded together, like most pack animals, for mutual security Every animal in our pack does not share the same responsibilities. Different animals can perform different functions within the pack.

claytongulick 2y ago

> This is literally everyone's job. It's the whole point of society. To a degree, yes - but I think if it's taken too far it becomes a trap that many people seeking power lay out. Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That being said, I do agree with part of your point. The purpose of having a society is that collective action lets us do amazing things like build airplanes, that would be otherwise impossible. In order to succeed at that we need some rules that everyone plays by, which involve giving up some freedoms - or the "social contract". The more of a safety net a society provides, the more restrictive the society must be. Optimizing for this is known as politics. I think history has shown us that the proper balance is one where we optimize for maximum elbow room, without letting people die on the streets. Trying to provide the illusion of safety and restrict interesting technology to protect a small percentage of the population is on the wrong side of this balance. Maybe we try it, and see what the effect actually are, rather than guessing. If it becomes a major problem, then address it - in the least restrictive way possible.

iudqnolq 2y ago
Fun fact, that quote has been entirely misinterpreted. > He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it. > It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means. https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...