6 ms·

Those industries don't pay well to anyone involved but are a global benefit. Such a strange world we live in.

almostgotcaught 2y ago
Is there a word for this specific kind of ambivalence where you label a pitiable, miserable set of circumstances "strange"? As if it's on the same level as the strong nuclear force? Maybe "motivated ambivalence". There's nothing strange about it just as there's nothing strange about cobalt mining conditions in Democratic Republic of Congo: exploitative trade agreements, political corruption, and apathy.
- byteknight 2y ago
  Just because you don't think its strange doesn't mean others don't. Strange is subjective. If he feels its odd we willfully ignore it, then its strange.
- vasco 2y ago
  Using "strange" instead of "bad" to me indicates someone has enough maturity to recognize that human nature is part of nature, which is gnarly and creates bad things like humans setting up incentives without having to necessarily classify humans or the universe as bad. Is it bad when a lion kills another animal? In a way yes, it's extra death that could be preventable, in another way it's what it is. Is it strange or bad if a human is born dumber than average? What about if a human is born more narcissistic than average and does bad things? It leaves open the possibility of you the writer also being wrong, so it comes across as humbly sharing an opinion.
  - frutiger 2y ago
    > Is it strange or bad if a human is born dumber than average? And by definition, 50% of babies are.
  - almostgotcaught 2y ago
    > has enough maturity to recognize that human nature is part of nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
    - vasco 2y ago
      I literally didnt define it as good. Maybe read again. I said it isnt good or bad, its nature, its what it is. Ironic that while explaining why using "bad" to qualify nature is not appropriate you think im saying its good.
      - almostgotcaught 2y ago
        i'm sorry that you don't have the patience to read a wikipedia article > Some people use the phrase, naturalistic fallacy or appeal to nature, in a different sense, to characterize inferences of the form "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable"
        vasco 2y ago
        Again, it is what it is, there's no moral attachment to my comment. I give up, you just want me to be wrong. It's just frustrating you don't recognize that was the argument I was making.
        almostgotcaught 2y ago
        what exactly do you think the difference is between > Again, it is what it is, there's no moral attachment to my comment. and > "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable"
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Why is that strange? At no time in history have jobs paid according to their benefit.
- throw10920 2y ago
  It's not actually strange - GP is just using that word to emotionally manipulate readers.
  - vasco 2y ago
    To manipulate readers into realizing that industry doesn't pay their workers well?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      basically. To manipulating the reader into thinking that workers being paid well or according to their "benefit" is the natural, logistical, or otherwise expected outcome. It is an attempt to switch the roles between what the conventional, familiar, and safe what is unconventional, weird, and strange. Paying workers according to "benefit" is not tried and true. It has real challenges and problems.
      - throw10920 2y ago
        I don't think it's wrong to pay workers according to the value they provide. It's just not normal (again, not necessarily a good thing), so use of the word "strange" is inaccurate - in addition to being a manipulative use of the word (it's pretty clear that the writer doesn't actually think it's strange, and is using the word to tug on heart strings).
    - throw10920 2y ago
      HN is not an advocacy platform, so manipulative comments, like boringg's, and yours, are not appreciated.
      - 2y ago
paxys 2y ago
"Paying well" is relative. There are lots of industries that are rightly considered exploitative from the western eye, but people who are working these jobs would otherwise be starving or relying on meager government handouts if they went away.
- fennecbutt 2y ago
  Only because we let 1% take from us and are easily distracted by petty race, sexuality, gender, immigration squabbles. The rich often pay 0% tax but we're still doing nothing about it. We'll never do anything about it.
- teachrdan 2y ago
  This is plainly true. But there is a middle ground between "the least amount of money workers will accept before choosing to starve instead" and "so much money it's no longer economical to pay workers to do." I have no idea what the case was in this specific industry in India. But in many developing countries, first world companies collaborate with government and pay off private muscle to make it impossible for workers to organize and earn anything in that middle ground. (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.)
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    > (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.) Reminds me of the Libertarian Police Department (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...): > "Do we have any leads?” > “Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.” > “Easy, chief,” I said. “-Any- rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.” > He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”
  - eru 2y ago
ornornor 2y ago
Not trying to defend this kind of practices, it just reminds me of something I watched recently about the working conditions in the Victorian era in a UK cotton mill… Atrocious and exploitative by all current standards, and yet people chose this over more traditional agricultural occupations because it paid better, weekly, and there was no uncertainty that you’ll lose an entire season of wages because the harvest was bad. And yet they were working 72h a week, had indentured child labour, average life expectancy was something like 40 years old, injuries and loss of fingers or limbs were regularly occurring.

Is there a word for this specific kind of ambivalence where you label a pitiable, miserable set of circumstances "strange"? As if it's on the same level as the strong nuclear force? Maybe "motivated ambivalence". There's nothing strange about it just as there's nothing strange about cobalt mining conditions in Democratic Republic of Congo: exploitative trade agreements, political corruption, and apathy.

byteknight 2y ago
Just because you don't think its strange doesn't mean others don't. Strange is subjective. If he feels its odd we willfully ignore it, then its strange.
vasco 2y ago
Using "strange" instead of "bad" to me indicates someone has enough maturity to recognize that human nature is part of nature, which is gnarly and creates bad things like humans setting up incentives without having to necessarily classify humans or the universe as bad. Is it bad when a lion kills another animal? In a way yes, it's extra death that could be preventable, in another way it's what it is. Is it strange or bad if a human is born dumber than average? What about if a human is born more narcissistic than average and does bad things? It leaves open the possibility of you the writer also being wrong, so it comes across as humbly sharing an opinion.
- frutiger 2y ago
  > Is it strange or bad if a human is born dumber than average? And by definition, 50% of babies are.
- almostgotcaught 2y ago
  > has enough maturity to recognize that human nature is part of nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
  - vasco 2y ago
    I literally didnt define it as good. Maybe read again. I said it isnt good or bad, its nature, its what it is. Ironic that while explaining why using "bad" to qualify nature is not appropriate you think im saying its good.
    - almostgotcaught 2y ago
      i'm sorry that you don't have the patience to read a wikipedia article > Some people use the phrase, naturalistic fallacy or appeal to nature, in a different sense, to characterize inferences of the form "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable"
      - vasco 2y ago
        Again, it is what it is, there's no moral attachment to my comment. I give up, you just want me to be wrong. It's just frustrating you don't recognize that was the argument I was making.
        almostgotcaught 2y ago
        what exactly do you think the difference is between > Again, it is what it is, there's no moral attachment to my comment. and > "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable"

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Why is that strange? At no time in history have jobs paid according to their benefit.

throw10920 2y ago
It's not actually strange - GP is just using that word to emotionally manipulate readers.
- vasco 2y ago
  To manipulate readers into realizing that industry doesn't pay their workers well?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    basically. To manipulating the reader into thinking that workers being paid well or according to their "benefit" is the natural, logistical, or otherwise expected outcome. It is an attempt to switch the roles between what the conventional, familiar, and safe what is unconventional, weird, and strange. Paying workers according to "benefit" is not tried and true. It has real challenges and problems.
    - throw10920 2y ago
      I don't think it's wrong to pay workers according to the value they provide. It's just not normal (again, not necessarily a good thing), so use of the word "strange" is inaccurate - in addition to being a manipulative use of the word (it's pretty clear that the writer doesn't actually think it's strange, and is using the word to tug on heart strings).
  - throw10920 2y ago
    HN is not an advocacy platform, so manipulative comments, like boringg's, and yours, are not appreciated.
    - 2y ago

paxys 2y ago

"Paying well" is relative. There are lots of industries that are rightly considered exploitative from the western eye, but people who are working these jobs would otherwise be starving or relying on meager government handouts if they went away.

fennecbutt 2y ago
Only because we let 1% take from us and are easily distracted by petty race, sexuality, gender, immigration squabbles. The rich often pay 0% tax but we're still doing nothing about it. We'll never do anything about it.
teachrdan 2y ago
This is plainly true. But there is a middle ground between "the least amount of money workers will accept before choosing to starve instead" and "so much money it's no longer economical to pay workers to do." I have no idea what the case was in this specific industry in India. But in many developing countries, first world companies collaborate with government and pay off private muscle to make it impossible for workers to organize and earn anything in that middle ground. (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.)
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > (I do not mean to imply that you deny this possibility. But there are many on HN who uncritically believe that if workers take a job, it is therefore a fair wage taken voluntarily.) Reminds me of the Libertarian Police Department (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...): > "Do we have any leads?” > “Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.” > “Easy, chief,” I said. “-Any- rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.” > He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”
- eru 2y ago

ornornor 2y ago

Not trying to defend this kind of practices, it just reminds me of something I watched recently about the working conditions in the Victorian era in a UK cotton mill… Atrocious and exploitative by all current standards, and yet people chose this over more traditional agricultural occupations because it paid better, weekly, and there was no uncertainty that you’ll lose an entire season of wages because the harvest was bad. And yet they were working 72h a week, had indentured child labour, average life expectancy was something like 40 years old, injuries and loss of fingers or limbs were regularly occurring.