4 ms·

No, this is just your angry knee-jerk reaction so you can feel good about taking the moral high-ground, and you're scrambling to find the negative in every comm

by beering 13y ago

No, this is just your angry knee-jerk reaction so you can feel good about taking the moral high-ground, and you're scrambling to find the negative in every comment. The comment you're replying is a detailed comment that also states that there should be more done to improve working conditions and wages. Your comment is a rant about how we're a bunch of "grown-ass white men" (thanks for assuming things about me) who bask in our privilege and wealth. Meta: Is there a label for this kind of derailing, angry comment? I feel like it could be a variant of concern trolling, where the writer pretends to care about the issue at hand but actually tries to redirect the conversation towards ad hominem attacks.

rubberband 13y ago
Is there a label for this kind of derailing, angry comment? Moral superiority, I suppose.
- eevilspock 13y ago
  wow. just wow.
cglee 13y ago
slacktivism ... maybe angry slacktivism
- lemmsjid 13y ago
  I really detest that term. The implication is that if you aren't out there doing something then you should just shut up and not be upset. To me that flies in the face of democracy and public discourse--words and opinions do matter. If someone who is outraged but doesn't do anything is a 'slacktivist', then what is someone who is both not outraged and not doing anything about it? The implication of 'slacktivist' is that the second person is somehow better--that in order to avoid being a 'slacktivist' you should school yourself into being an always-detached philosopher of suffering, always reasonable, always balanced.
  - unlogic 13y ago
    if you aren't out there doing something then you should just shut up You've said it yourself. Golden words. What kind of democracy do you expect to get in HN comments? After that half-cocked "outrage" and "being upset" the slacktivist is going to click another cat video startup and forget this topic altogether. I can see dêmos, but κράτος - not at all.
tptacek 13y ago
I call it outrage tourism. Most of the time, people commenting like this are simply trying on other people's purported outrage to see how it feels.
- javajosh 13y ago
  I think a lot of the emotion here comes not only from empathizing with Meem's plight, but the twin realizations that a) the problem is much wider than Meem, and b) individuals are largely powerless to do anything about the wider issue of poverty. It can be difficult to accept your own powerlessness in the face of large scale social problems. Our instinct is to want to confer the same quality of life we have on those who, through no fault or failing of their own, live in a much poorer society with much poorer prospects for virtually everyone born there. Clearly "society" is to blame, but how do you change a society, from top to bottom? Does Bangaldesh need a Lee Kuan Yew[1]? So no, it's not tourism. It's a howl of pain when confronted with newly realized powerlessness. And personally, I prefer it to cool indifference. [1] http://www.amazon.com/From-Third-World-First-Singapore/dp/0060197765 http://www.amazon.com/From-Third-World-First-Singapore/dp/00...
  - eevilspock 13y ago
    The thing is, the problem is not powerlessness, but the lack of courage and will. If each and every one of us refused to contribute to evil structures and systems, it would make a huge difference. The Banality of Systemic Evil is a great read: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the-banality-of-systemic-evil/ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the-banality... And you're right about the indifference. Add ambivalence to lack of courage and will.
Natsu 13y ago
Have you ever worked in a factory? I used to. They squeeze you as hard as they can, constantly. Most of the people have no leverage to push back. While having money is better than having none, that doesn't mean everything is ok and you can just ignore the way the workers get abused. In the US, you can push back at things like unsafe conditions with threats of OSHA. I doubt there's any such thing in Bangladesh, but it would be a good start. Having a job is great, but they should be required to provide reasonable working conditions. And even in the USA, they will do the absolute minimum unless pushed. Source: I have worked 16-hour shifts in a US factory that was over 100F, sometimes unable to get lunch or bathroom breaks. I now work a normal office job and laugh at the very notion of comparing even a 100-hour week doing this to a 70-hour week doing that.
- Retric 13y ago
  The #1 way to fight back is to quit which increases costs to the factory owner, if you don't then it's better than the alternatives.
  - jmduke 13y ago
    I am unexperienced when it comes to such matters, but: 1. Quitting means you are no longer making money, and if that was an acceptable endgame then you likely wouldn't be employed in such conditions in the first place; 2. I find it extremely unlikely that such factory owners would have a dearth of prospective (eager, even) employees.
    - Retric 13y ago
      #1 Quitting does not mean you never look for another job or quit on the first day etc. It means when you perceive working for said factory is not worth it you do something else. #2 Having a large labor supply suggests the job is competitive. However, even if that's the case having people constantly quit increases training costs. The point of all of this is industrialization tends to follow a path where people move from terrible low wage jobs to more well paid work. Even China has moved past the first rung of the ladder with market forces forcing factory's to increase pay and or improve conditions. Presumably where going to run out of 3rd world countries at some point, though there is some concern robots / AI is going to end up filling that nitch possibly stranding a few countries.

by beering 13y ago

rubberband 13y ago

Is there a label for this kind of derailing, angry comment? Moral superiority, I suppose.

eevilspock 13y ago
wow. just wow.

cglee 13y ago

slacktivism ... maybe angry slacktivism

lemmsjid 13y ago
I really detest that term. The implication is that if you aren't out there doing something then you should just shut up and not be upset. To me that flies in the face of democracy and public discourse--words and opinions do matter. If someone who is outraged but doesn't do anything is a 'slacktivist', then what is someone who is both not outraged and not doing anything about it? The implication of 'slacktivist' is that the second person is somehow better--that in order to avoid being a 'slacktivist' you should school yourself into being an always-detached philosopher of suffering, always reasonable, always balanced.
- unlogic 13y ago
  if you aren't out there doing something then you should just shut up You've said it yourself. Golden words. What kind of democracy do you expect to get in HN comments? After that half-cocked "outrage" and "being upset" the slacktivist is going to click another cat video startup and forget this topic altogether. I can see dêmos, but κράτος - not at all.

tptacek 13y ago

I call it outrage tourism. Most of the time, people commenting like this are simply trying on other people's purported outrage to see how it feels.

javajosh 13y ago
I think a lot of the emotion here comes not only from empathizing with Meem's plight, but the twin realizations that a) the problem is much wider than Meem, and b) individuals are largely powerless to do anything about the wider issue of poverty. It can be difficult to accept your own powerlessness in the face of large scale social problems. Our instinct is to want to confer the same quality of life we have on those who, through no fault or failing of their own, live in a much poorer society with much poorer prospects for virtually everyone born there. Clearly "society" is to blame, but how do you change a society, from top to bottom? Does Bangaldesh need a Lee Kuan Yew[1]? So no, it's not tourism. It's a howl of pain when confronted with newly realized powerlessness. And personally, I prefer it to cool indifference. [1] http://www.amazon.com/From-Third-World-First-Singapore/dp/0060197765 http://www.amazon.com/From-Third-World-First-Singapore/dp/00...
- eevilspock 13y ago
  The thing is, the problem is not powerlessness, but the lack of courage and will. If each and every one of us refused to contribute to evil structures and systems, it would make a huge difference. The Banality of Systemic Evil is a great read: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the-banality-of-systemic-evil/ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the-banality... And you're right about the indifference. Add ambivalence to lack of courage and will.

Natsu 13y ago

Have you ever worked in a factory? I used to. They squeeze you as hard as they can, constantly. Most of the people have no leverage to push back. While having money is better than having none, that doesn't mean everything is ok and you can just ignore the way the workers get abused. In the US, you can push back at things like unsafe conditions with threats of OSHA. I doubt there's any such thing in Bangladesh, but it would be a good start. Having a job is great, but they should be required to provide reasonable working conditions. And even in the USA, they will do the absolute minimum unless pushed. Source: I have worked 16-hour shifts in a US factory that was over 100F, sometimes unable to get lunch or bathroom breaks. I now work a normal office job and laugh at the very notion of comparing even a 100-hour week doing this to a 70-hour week doing that.

Retric 13y ago
The #1 way to fight back is to quit which increases costs to the factory owner, if you don't then it's better than the alternatives.
- jmduke 13y ago
  I am unexperienced when it comes to such matters, but: 1. Quitting means you are no longer making money, and if that was an acceptable endgame then you likely wouldn't be employed in such conditions in the first place; 2. I find it extremely unlikely that such factory owners would have a dearth of prospective (eager, even) employees.
  - Retric 13y ago
    #1 Quitting does not mean you never look for another job or quit on the first day etc. It means when you perceive working for said factory is not worth it you do something else. #2 Having a large labor supply suggests the job is competitive. However, even if that's the case having people constantly quit increases training costs. The point of all of this is industrialization tends to follow a path where people move from terrible low wage jobs to more well paid work. Even China has moved past the first rung of the ladder with market forces forcing factory's to increase pay and or improve conditions. Presumably where going to run out of 3rd world countries at some point, though there is some concern robots / AI is going to end up filling that nitch possibly stranding a few countries.