3 ms·

The only reason you can "afford" anything is because other people do shit they would rather not, but do so for the money. If people could actually "afford to ma

The only reason you can "afford" anything is because other people do shit they would rather not, but do so for the money. If people could actually "afford to make choices" you'd find out pretty soon how dependent you are on others doing the dirty work for you to maintain your living standard. Like sure things aren't perfect, not everyone is compensated proportionally to their contributions, no perfect markets and you can certainly improve things, but "I hate this planet" vibe when the default is hunter gatherer I feel like is majorly lacking perspective.

fc417fc802 7mo ago
Your logic here amounts to "some people have it bad therefore everyone needs to have it bad". There are many situations where the world would generally be better if a relevant group of people had the option to choose to go elsewhere. When you are part of such a group and don't have that choice it is perfectly reasonable to be frustrated by the state of things.
- SoftTalker 7mo ago
  Frustration is a clue that you need to reframe the problem.
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    Not so. Certainly in many contexts it is a clue that reframing the problem might be useful but you certainly don't need to. In many cases doing so might even be counterproductive. There are times when being frustrated or even angry at the situation you find yourself in is the right thing. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here. Just observing that frustration doesn't necessarily imply that you're wrong. Of course the inverse is also true. Being frustrated doesn't mean others are necessarily in the wrong - it might well be your own damn fault.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- rafaelmn 7mo ago
  No my logic is "if everyone had the chance to do what they wanted nobody would do what is needed".
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    I think I wholly disagree - if sufficiently compensated the tasks would get done. Bit like claiming that abolishing slavery would result in the former slaves refusing to do the necessary work. Regardless, such observations are not valid arguments against noticing that a particular situation could be improved in a particular way. The logical outcome of such negative lines of thinking is to ultimately arrive at a mentality of trying to drag others down to your own level rather than to lift them up when possible. Don't be a crab in a bucket.
phatskat 7mo ago
“The default is hunter gatherer” kind of leaves out a lot of communal living that happened throughout human history. Someone had to hunt, someone had to watch the kids, someone had to garden, eventually people needed to work on sewage lines and waste disposal. Nothing about everyone having their needs met precludes the dirty work getting done - heck, some people even enjoy it! The idea that everyone would just give up taking care of the necessities is, imo, ridiculous. It smacks of the tired line of “in an emergency, it’s every man for himself and no one will have your back” when history has shown again and again that communities come together and mutual aid flourishes in the face of disaster.

fc417fc802 7mo ago

Your logic here amounts to "some people have it bad therefore everyone needs to have it bad". There are many situations where the world would generally be better if a relevant group of people had the option to choose to go elsewhere. When you are part of such a group and don't have that choice it is perfectly reasonable to be frustrated by the state of things.

SoftTalker 7mo ago
Frustration is a clue that you need to reframe the problem.
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  Not so. Certainly in many contexts it is a clue that reframing the problem might be useful but you certainly don't need to. In many cases doing so might even be counterproductive. There are times when being frustrated or even angry at the situation you find yourself in is the right thing. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here. Just observing that frustration doesn't necessarily imply that you're wrong. Of course the inverse is also true. Being frustrated doesn't mean others are necessarily in the wrong - it might well be your own damn fault.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
rafaelmn 7mo ago
No my logic is "if everyone had the chance to do what they wanted nobody would do what is needed".
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  I think I wholly disagree - if sufficiently compensated the tasks would get done. Bit like claiming that abolishing slavery would result in the former slaves refusing to do the necessary work. Regardless, such observations are not valid arguments against noticing that a particular situation could be improved in a particular way. The logical outcome of such negative lines of thinking is to ultimately arrive at a mentality of trying to drag others down to your own level rather than to lift them up when possible. Don't be a crab in a bucket.

phatskat 7mo ago

“The default is hunter gatherer” kind of leaves out a lot of communal living that happened throughout human history. Someone had to hunt, someone had to watch the kids, someone had to garden, eventually people needed to work on sewage lines and waste disposal. Nothing about everyone having their needs met precludes the dirty work getting done - heck, some people even enjoy it! The idea that everyone would just give up taking care of the necessities is, imo, ridiculous. It smacks of the tired line of “in an emergency, it’s every man for himself and no one will have your back” when history has shown again and again that communities come together and mutual aid flourishes in the face of disaster.