3 ms·

This is one reason I support not putting humans on money. We used to put mythological figures on our coinage (liberty, justice, etc), because the are symbols an

by scoofy 1y ago

This is one reason I support not putting humans on money. We used to put mythological figures on our coinage (liberty, justice, etc), because the are symbols and are uncomplicated by substance. Humans are flawed. Putting humans on money -- as symbols -- is going to make us go in circles about their imperfection. From Washington as a slave owner to Steve Jobs suppressing wages. This is not an issue if we just put the symbols on the money instead of using people as proxies. If we want a coin for innovators, but Providentia on the coin.

johnnyanmac 1y ago
Guess when you put it that way, it's much better to have a clanker on a coin than a person. Sadly, with that mentality we wouldn't have celebrities or perhaps even that many leaders. Fests like this are what drive some of the most driven people, and our biology makes us want to follow and admire other people as a former pack hunting species. The best we got is thst we can't put any living person on a coin (though, guess what the rumors are trying to say?)
whateveracct 1y ago
If you can't handle that people have flaws, you're just immature. Washington and Jobs are both hugely important historical figures, and the bad parts don't invalidate their legacies. Purity testing has ruined liberal politics.
- scoofy 1y ago
  I don't want people on the money exactly because hero worship is stupid. We should care about our principles, so we should put our principles on the money, not our heroes. I was using the examples as examples. I agree with you about people who can't handle nuance and imperfection. My point is only that putting people on the money is just dumb to begin with, because it misses the point of what people are trying to do.
freetinker 1y ago
This is an evolved view. Let’s put achievements on currency, not humans. Of course, this is no panacea - “achievement” is ambiguous enough to be open to interpretation, and therefore political capture. But it’s a step forward.
mensetmanusman 1y ago
Mature thinkers can realize that humans are simultaneously good and bad. It’s perfectly fine to celebrate the good side while acknowledging their flaws.z

by scoofy 1y ago

johnnyanmac 1y ago

Guess when you put it that way, it's much better to have a clanker on a coin than a person. Sadly, with that mentality we wouldn't have celebrities or perhaps even that many leaders. Fests like this are what drive some of the most driven people, and our biology makes us want to follow and admire other people as a former pack hunting species. The best we got is thst we can't put any living person on a coin (though, guess what the rumors are trying to say?)

whateveracct 1y ago

If you can't handle that people have flaws, you're just immature. Washington and Jobs are both hugely important historical figures, and the bad parts don't invalidate their legacies. Purity testing has ruined liberal politics.

scoofy 1y ago
I don't want people on the money exactly because hero worship is stupid. We should care about our principles, so we should put our principles on the money, not our heroes. I was using the examples as examples. I agree with you about people who can't handle nuance and imperfection. My point is only that putting people on the money is just dumb to begin with, because it misses the point of what people are trying to do.

freetinker 1y ago

This is an evolved view. Let’s put achievements on currency, not humans. Of course, this is no panacea - “achievement” is ambiguous enough to be open to interpretation, and therefore political capture. But it’s a step forward.

mensetmanusman 1y ago

Mature thinkers can realize that humans are simultaneously good and bad. It’s perfectly fine to celebrate the good side while acknowledging their flaws.z