3 ms·

I guess what makes me sad is that I would like my generation to realize that it would be way better for us, like inside, in our stomachs, to be willing to pay h

I guess what makes me sad is that I would like my generation to realize that it would be way better for us, like inside, in our stomachs, to be willing to pay higher taxes to be able to shelter and feed poor people, not for their sake but for ours, so that we would be the sort of culture that doesn’t let people die. And instead we’re all so worried about an extra 4% off our monthly paycheck that we get all exercised about it. And I see you looking at me… I know this sounds all pious and weird and it’s got nothing to do with the book, but doing this book was hard for me because it was about why exactly are we so sad and how have we become so unbelievably selfish, like lethally selfish and self-indulgent. I love David Foster Wallace because he is one of those people who have a knack for summarizing and articulating huge concepts that have great relevancy to me. This quote stood out to me especially as a source of personal sadness and a sadly still-relevant commentary on our culture.

innguest 12y ago
What a hypocrite. He wishes so dearly that everyone have the same opinion he does so as to willingly work more to pay for other people's shelter and food. He can be the change he wants to see - all he has to do is take care that the poor people around him have shelter and food. Aren't we seeing something similar in India, with neighborhoods getting together without help from any organization and fixing their death traps and beautifying their pissing corners and walls? DFW could have done that, but instead he was an armchair idealist who one day wished some centralized power would take a lot more money from a lot more willing people so that they alone could solve the problems of the world. How convenient. That quote that stood out to you is the myopic and uneducated opinion of a depressed person. At least with my depression I don't go around like a lunatic defending there must be a power giant to steal more of people's money and give it to the poor, as if that ever worked. A true Utopia that this planet has never seen. I have seen pictures and videos of those citizen movements in India and that is not Utopia but real life. Alas, not good enough for DFW. It seems every depressed person hates this world and wishes for a better one, but with all his reading and writing, his opinion never matured beyond that of current high-schoolers.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- stephencanon 12y ago
  Accusing someone of hypocrisy is not a refutation of their idea. It's base rhetoric, used when one can't address the actual argument being put forward. The fact that someone does not devote their life to a goal they put forward in no way makes the goal wrong. If a smoker tells you to not to smoke, is he a hypocrite? Sure. Does that mean that he's wrong and you should smoke? No. I'd like to think that HN can do better and actually examine ideas, and not dismiss them because of hypocrisy. Your second paragraph is much, much better in this regard.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- 21echoes 12y ago
  It's amazing to me that you would accuse DFW of myopia and hypocrisy when your argument here is, well, hypocritically myopic (not to mention one might say that DFW's overarching thesis in all of his work was encouraging his readers to be less myopic e.g. [1][2]) To tackle a problem like world hunger and homelessness takes an incredible amount of effort across a huge number of domains by an enormous amount of people. DFW was obviously not someone best suited to go e.g. repair "pissing corners and walls", and we should not expect him to be. Instead, he did many things to inspire many people to lead more altruistic and less self-centered lives. This was his talent, and it's probably done more good for the world than any amount manual labor he could have done in his lifetime. Ignoring this aspect of helping the afflicted is the same strain of myopia that thinks charities should give 100% of their fundraising to researchers/etc, as if raising awareness and paying competitive salaries were not the lifeblood of said charities[3]. I'll leave your rant about how "power giants stealing money have never helped the poor" alone, as your rhetoric and ignorance of evidence to the contrary clearly imply you're not about to have a rational discussion about it. [1] http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/DFWKenyonAddress2005.pdf http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/DFWKenyonAddress2005.pdf [2] http://observer.com/1997/10/john-updike-champion-literary-phallocrat-drops-one-is-this-finally-the-end-for-magnificent-narcissists/ http://observer.com/1997/10/john-updike-champion-literary-ph... [3] http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about...
dionidium 12y ago
This is a beautiful sentiment from one of my favorite writers, but it also highlights why these arguments are so often unproductive. Obviously, there are people who think that handouts result in a net loss in happiness for the world. Especially in progressive nations with functioning economies. You might disagree with that calculus, but it's silly to think that the people on the other side are just big meanies.
- dionidium 12y ago
  To elaborate, I'll paraphrase Adam Carolla by pointing out that the worst thing you can do is give someone a free house in a place they don't want to live. You'll find that person unhappy, clinging to the free house 30 years from now. Indeed, I think most of us here derive our most intense satisfaction from creating and pushing forward. It's not hard to see how a system that makes a handout contingent on not advancing could have unintended effects. Again, I'm not suggesting that we let people die in the streets. I'm suggesting that the stuff DFW is sympathetic to is a much softer form of charity than that.

innguest 12y ago

What a hypocrite. He wishes so dearly that everyone have the same opinion he does so as to willingly work more to pay for other people's shelter and food. He can be the change he wants to see - all he has to do is take care that the poor people around him have shelter and food. Aren't we seeing something similar in India, with neighborhoods getting together without help from any organization and fixing their death traps and beautifying their pissing corners and walls? DFW could have done that, but instead he was an armchair idealist who one day wished some centralized power would take a lot more money from a lot more willing people so that they alone could solve the problems of the world. How convenient. That quote that stood out to you is the myopic and uneducated opinion of a depressed person. At least with my depression I don't go around like a lunatic defending there must be a power giant to steal more of people's money and give it to the poor, as if that ever worked. A true Utopia that this planet has never seen. I have seen pictures and videos of those citizen movements in India and that is not Utopia but real life. Alas, not good enough for DFW. It seems every depressed person hates this world and wishes for a better one, but with all his reading and writing, his opinion never matured beyond that of current high-schoolers.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
stephencanon 12y ago
Accusing someone of hypocrisy is not a refutation of their idea. It's base rhetoric, used when one can't address the actual argument being put forward. The fact that someone does not devote their life to a goal they put forward in no way makes the goal wrong. If a smoker tells you to not to smoke, is he a hypocrite? Sure. Does that mean that he's wrong and you should smoke? No. I'd like to think that HN can do better and actually examine ideas, and not dismiss them because of hypocrisy. Your second paragraph is much, much better in this regard.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
21echoes 12y ago
It's amazing to me that you would accuse DFW of myopia and hypocrisy when your argument here is, well, hypocritically myopic (not to mention one might say that DFW's overarching thesis in all of his work was encouraging his readers to be less myopic e.g. [1][2]) To tackle a problem like world hunger and homelessness takes an incredible amount of effort across a huge number of domains by an enormous amount of people. DFW was obviously not someone best suited to go e.g. repair "pissing corners and walls", and we should not expect him to be. Instead, he did many things to inspire many people to lead more altruistic and less self-centered lives. This was his talent, and it's probably done more good for the world than any amount manual labor he could have done in his lifetime. Ignoring this aspect of helping the afflicted is the same strain of myopia that thinks charities should give 100% of their fundraising to researchers/etc, as if raising awareness and paying competitive salaries were not the lifeblood of said charities[3]. I'll leave your rant about how "power giants stealing money have never helped the poor" alone, as your rhetoric and ignorance of evidence to the contrary clearly imply you're not about to have a rational discussion about it. [1] http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/DFWKenyonAddress2005.pdf http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/DFWKenyonAddress2005.pdf [2] http://observer.com/1997/10/john-updike-champion-literary-phallocrat-drops-one-is-this-finally-the-end-for-magnificent-narcissists/ http://observer.com/1997/10/john-updike-champion-literary-ph... [3] http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about...

dionidium 12y ago

This is a beautiful sentiment from one of my favorite writers, but it also highlights why these arguments are so often unproductive. Obviously, there are people who think that handouts result in a net loss in happiness for the world. Especially in progressive nations with functioning economies. You might disagree with that calculus, but it's silly to think that the people on the other side are just big meanies.

dionidium 12y ago
To elaborate, I'll paraphrase Adam Carolla by pointing out that the worst thing you can do is give someone a free house in a place they don't want to live. You'll find that person unhappy, clinging to the free house 30 years from now. Indeed, I think most of us here derive our most intense satisfaction from creating and pushing forward. It's not hard to see how a system that makes a handout contingent on not advancing could have unintended effects. Again, I'm not suggesting that we let people die in the streets. I'm suggesting that the stuff DFW is sympathetic to is a much softer form of charity than that.