3 ms·

I think the issue ultimately comes down to what Ian Danskin described, paraphrased: that liberals see the faults in society as things that can be fixed, whereas

I think the issue ultimately comes down to what Ian Danskin described, paraphrased: that liberals see the faults in society as things that can be fixed, whereas conservatives see those faults as facts of life (reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yts2F44RqFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yts2F44RqFw). Wouldn't you also be less happy if you viewed society's faults as fixable, where you rally, vote, and protest for them to be fixed, and yet they almost never are?

9rx 1y ago
> where you rally, vote, and protest for them to be fixed, and yet they almost never are? I find it very interesting that you indicate that the liberal approach to fixing a problem is not to fix it, but to plead to other people to fix it for them. How far do you see that extrapolating? It is certainly the case that the data suggests that liberals are more likely to outsource work to other people even for simple daily tasks like food preparation, and in popular culture the "liberal-educated elite" are surely portrayed as seeing many jobs as being beneath them. Which, perhaps, leads us into the topic of elite overproduction. There is a strong case to be made that the US suffers from it, and what you describe very well could be a manifestation of it. Everyone wants to be the boss, but nobody wants to do the manual labor. When one is certain they should be the manager, so to speak, but fails to achieve that position, I can see how that would turn one towards unhappiness. It can be a bit demoralizing to realize that you aren't as great/able/etc. as you thought you were.
- Defletter 1y ago
  While there are certainly nuggets of truth in what you say, your "the liberal approach to fixing a problem is not to fix it, but to plead to other people to fix it for them" is nonetheless an exceptionally uncharitable way to re-frame people trying to get their government to enact change. It reminds me of that infamous Pride and Prejudice review: "Just a bunch of people going to each other's houses." There are a multitude of issues that can only be solved systemically, like abortion rights, or the housing crisis, or homelessness, or wage theft, or "delay, deny, defend", school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence, etc. Like, believe it or not, but there are many issues that are not fixable by just fixing it like it's a squeaky door hinge or a neighbour's overgrown lawn. And even with issues like homelessness, if you wanted to do your bit by providing food, you can get arrested and fined for that, depending on the jurisdiction. Like, yes, liberals tend to have certain amount of defeatism where they wont attempt to help anyone if they can't help everyone. And yes, there are issues with "liberal" intellectualism, particularly within the middle class. But some of the charges you make are misattributed: there is literally a meme ("Who Wants Change? Who Wants To Change?") which my game-dev community has a version of ("Who wants to make a game? Who wants to code that game?"). You could make a similar one about story-ideas and actual authors. This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals. It's just kind of human nature. But I feel like this accusation, for many, comes from a Fox-and-the-Grapes style resentment towards the middle class, which tends to lean more liberal. And like... this is just bog-standard class warfare, not actual ideological difference.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > the housing crisis What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work building homes? The cost of a house is mostly labor. The only meaningful way to get the cost down is to reduce the cost of labor. By the properties of supply and demand, the only realistic way to reduce the cost of labor, aside from giving up on the idea of having a home, is to see more people doing it. Which also solves the challenge of those who are in the business currently being booked up for years in advance, making it impossible to build even when cost isn't an issue. Jump right in. The construction industry will be very happy to see the new warm bodies. They are sorely needed. > homelessness What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work offering therapy/support, opening their homes to negate the homeless part, and maybe also open their wallets to give those in that situation a start to rebuild? I'll grant you it is questionable how effective that is — homelessness tends to stem from deep issues that may even be impossible to fix — but certainly the system isn't magic. It can only do what people can do. The so-called system is just people, after all. But, none of that requires the system. The people can step up and do it on their own. > wage theft What is the system going to do other than place workers in a de facto union that leverages its power for certain baseline advantages? That is all it has ever given labor in the past. That doesn't require the system either, of course. The people can join their own independent union on their own accord to extend their demands. History has well and truly proven that. > "delay, deny, defend" The Amish have shown that you don't need insurance if you have strong community. Do the liberals have no way to find it in their hearts to actually become a community? If not, it would be funny as it is always the conservatives who are said to be heartless and selfish. But if it is the liberals who are, in fact, the heartless, selfish ones you can still formalize it in what is known as mutual insurance. The system already offers the solution for this one. People just need to step up and put in the manual labor to see it happen. > abortion rights Now you are getting into much greater complexity, but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement. The liberals can choose to not enforce that which surrounds the issue. We've been here before with things like cannabis, so it is not unprecedented. Technically illegal in the US, but nobody is going to put in the effort to stop you as they don't actually believe in it. If there is enough care to maintain enforcement with respect to abortions, perhaps the desire to see change isn't actually there? A society doesn't function well on the whims of an individual (as the people of the US are starting to learn from a certain orange individual). One does need to be careful to not get caught up in their own personal desires. > school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence You've got me on this one. I have no understanding of how this has become a problem. A few generations ago the kids used to literally take guns on the bus to use in the school's rifle range and no human was ever shot in the process. Now gun are banned, but humans in those schools are getting shot at a frightening, and seemingly increasing, rate. It is so counterintuitive and bizarre. What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here? > This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals. Right, but the idea posited by the original comment is that conservatives are generally accepting of their own laziness. They won't do it either, but are sympathetic when nobody else will in kind. Is that a fair distinction? I'm not sure, but one to take up with the original comment. > It's just kind of human nature. To some degree, but we also have a lot of lingering evidence in the historic farming communities of people stepping up and fixing their problems. Where I grew up, the supply company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The telephone (now internet[1]) company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The insurance company, going back to your earlier point, was established and continues to be owned by the customers. I could go on and on. They didn't wait around for some nebulous system of outsiders to fix their problems, they just did it. This "someone else should do it" idea, to the extent that it has become, is rather modern. So what has changed in that regard? [1] Another good modern issue, meaning access to quality high speed internet, that many believe can only be solved systemically despite plenty of contrary scenarios where people have just stepped up and fixed it on their own.
znpy 1y ago
I get that quote, but there's an aspect to that that has change over the last ~20 years or so and that is the key pivotal point. > liberals see the faults in society as things that can be fixed The change in my opinion is that the faults in society is a perfect excuse for extreme rage and extreme anger. Sometimes talking to some left-wing extremists really sounds like talking to somebody that's been brainwashed.

9rx 1y ago

> where you rally, vote, and protest for them to be fixed, and yet they almost never are? I find it very interesting that you indicate that the liberal approach to fixing a problem is not to fix it, but to plead to other people to fix it for them. How far do you see that extrapolating? It is certainly the case that the data suggests that liberals are more likely to outsource work to other people even for simple daily tasks like food preparation, and in popular culture the "liberal-educated elite" are surely portrayed as seeing many jobs as being beneath them. Which, perhaps, leads us into the topic of elite overproduction. There is a strong case to be made that the US suffers from it, and what you describe very well could be a manifestation of it. Everyone wants to be the boss, but nobody wants to do the manual labor. When one is certain they should be the manager, so to speak, but fails to achieve that position, I can see how that would turn one towards unhappiness. It can be a bit demoralizing to realize that you aren't as great/able/etc. as you thought you were.

Defletter 1y ago
While there are certainly nuggets of truth in what you say, your "the liberal approach to fixing a problem is not to fix it, but to plead to other people to fix it for them" is nonetheless an exceptionally uncharitable way to re-frame people trying to get their government to enact change. It reminds me of that infamous Pride and Prejudice review: "Just a bunch of people going to each other's houses." There are a multitude of issues that can only be solved systemically, like abortion rights, or the housing crisis, or homelessness, or wage theft, or "delay, deny, defend", school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence, etc. Like, believe it or not, but there are many issues that are not fixable by just fixing it like it's a squeaky door hinge or a neighbour's overgrown lawn. And even with issues like homelessness, if you wanted to do your bit by providing food, you can get arrested and fined for that, depending on the jurisdiction. Like, yes, liberals tend to have certain amount of defeatism where they wont attempt to help anyone if they can't help everyone. And yes, there are issues with "liberal" intellectualism, particularly within the middle class. But some of the charges you make are misattributed: there is literally a meme ("Who Wants Change? Who Wants To Change?") which my game-dev community has a version of ("Who wants to make a game? Who wants to code that game?"). You could make a similar one about story-ideas and actual authors. This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals. It's just kind of human nature. But I feel like this accusation, for many, comes from a Fox-and-the-Grapes style resentment towards the middle class, which tends to lean more liberal. And like... this is just bog-standard class warfare, not actual ideological difference.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > the housing crisis What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work building homes? The cost of a house is mostly labor. The only meaningful way to get the cost down is to reduce the cost of labor. By the properties of supply and demand, the only realistic way to reduce the cost of labor, aside from giving up on the idea of having a home, is to see more people doing it. Which also solves the challenge of those who are in the business currently being booked up for years in advance, making it impossible to build even when cost isn't an issue. Jump right in. The construction industry will be very happy to see the new warm bodies. They are sorely needed. > homelessness What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work offering therapy/support, opening their homes to negate the homeless part, and maybe also open their wallets to give those in that situation a start to rebuild? I'll grant you it is questionable how effective that is — homelessness tends to stem from deep issues that may even be impossible to fix — but certainly the system isn't magic. It can only do what people can do. The so-called system is just people, after all. But, none of that requires the system. The people can step up and do it on their own. > wage theft What is the system going to do other than place workers in a de facto union that leverages its power for certain baseline advantages? That is all it has ever given labor in the past. That doesn't require the system either, of course. The people can join their own independent union on their own accord to extend their demands. History has well and truly proven that. > "delay, deny, defend" The Amish have shown that you don't need insurance if you have strong community. Do the liberals have no way to find it in their hearts to actually become a community? If not, it would be funny as it is always the conservatives who are said to be heartless and selfish. But if it is the liberals who are, in fact, the heartless, selfish ones you can still formalize it in what is known as mutual insurance. The system already offers the solution for this one. People just need to step up and put in the manual labor to see it happen. > abortion rights Now you are getting into much greater complexity, but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement. The liberals can choose to not enforce that which surrounds the issue. We've been here before with things like cannabis, so it is not unprecedented. Technically illegal in the US, but nobody is going to put in the effort to stop you as they don't actually believe in it. If there is enough care to maintain enforcement with respect to abortions, perhaps the desire to see change isn't actually there? A society doesn't function well on the whims of an individual (as the people of the US are starting to learn from a certain orange individual). One does need to be careful to not get caught up in their own personal desires. > school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence You've got me on this one. I have no understanding of how this has become a problem. A few generations ago the kids used to literally take guns on the bus to use in the school's rifle range and no human was ever shot in the process. Now gun are banned, but humans in those schools are getting shot at a frightening, and seemingly increasing, rate. It is so counterintuitive and bizarre. What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here? > This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals. Right, but the idea posited by the original comment is that conservatives are generally accepting of their own laziness. They won't do it either, but are sympathetic when nobody else will in kind. Is that a fair distinction? I'm not sure, but one to take up with the original comment. > It's just kind of human nature. To some degree, but we also have a lot of lingering evidence in the historic farming communities of people stepping up and fixing their problems. Where I grew up, the supply company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The telephone (now internet[1]) company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The insurance company, going back to your earlier point, was established and continues to be owned by the customers. I could go on and on. They didn't wait around for some nebulous system of outsiders to fix their problems, they just did it. This "someone else should do it" idea, to the extent that it has become, is rather modern. So what has changed in that regard? [1] Another good modern issue, meaning access to quality high speed internet, that many believe can only be solved systemically despite plenty of contrary scenarios where people have just stepped up and fixed it on their own.

znpy 1y ago

I get that quote, but there's an aspect to that that has change over the last ~20 years or so and that is the key pivotal point. > liberals see the faults in society as things that can be fixed The change in my opinion is that the faults in society is a perfect excuse for extreme rage and extreme anger. Sometimes talking to some left-wing extremists really sounds like talking to somebody that's been brainwashed.