Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 204 posts

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#101

Post by hjanssen »

ethagknight wrote: post #98
bjourne wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, antiwork is the idea that work is unnatural, forced upon us and not part of what it is to be human. For example, I work in academia so I have lot of personal freedom and I enjoy my work. However, work itself is still forced upon me . I have no practical choice on over whether I should work or not. Antiwork means that you think this is bad and that you should have that choice. Antiwork is not Socialism, it is not…

Curious, forced upon you by whom? if you move somewhere where no one else can force you to work (maybe the wilderness?), then what forces you to work?

To take part in society in any meaningful way you certainly have to work.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#102

Post by letitbeirie »

scotty79 wrote: post #92
joecot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much that the problem is being a dog walker, it's that she's a dog walker who only works 20-25 hours a week and believes people should work even less . And that her response to Fox News's question about whether they were being lazy was "Laziness is a virtue". This mod made previous posts about how she literally sleeps on the job[1], so this isn't about a noble career choice, it's just about laziness. She…

I think that's the whole point that any amount of work that is obligatory to survive is too much. Showing a person who opposes work in current mainstream culture will only end up with mixture of laughter, indignation and branding him as lazy. It's very similar to the reaction you'd get few decades ago if you showed a black man who thinks he's people. Evereybody in our culture was brainwashed with supposed virtues of…

> In the future, anti-work in the style of "where's my robot that does all work I don't freely choose to do"

Maybe someday. This was one of the common optimistic promises of the space age (along with "power too cheap to meter") that the 70s smothered like a wet blanket.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#103

Post by hypertele-Xii »

NoPicklez wrote: post #82
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this person had said, I work x number of hours a week dog walking so I can follow my passion of x, then that's completely fine. What if one can follow their passion of x without walking the dog? Would that then not be fine with you anymore?

Well if they don’t have a job at all and/or their passion does not bring in an income from said passion then I don’t know how they will put food on the table. My point was that this person conveyed themselves as a 30 year old dog walker who sleeps on the job and wants to work less hours. But if they could follow their passion they would want to teach. But this person was not making any strides in achieving this at al…

There's enough food to go around. We no longer need to base the foundation of survival on subsistence farming. Like 1% of the population is literally "putting food on the table", i.e. farming. The remaining 99% are doing things of questionable utility, like art, religion, philosphy... Only a hypercapitalist would not understand how anyone could exist without a "job".

What does "making strides" towards philosophy even mean? Philosophy is largely about taking the time to think about stuff. This person in question seems to have that down. Sure they might fail to figure anything meaningful out, but that's valuable in its own right. A lifetime of sleep walking dogs could lead to enlightenment.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#104

Post by estaseuropano »

alexb_ wrote: post #28
anonygler wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my god stop that person from wobbling in their chair.

Worth mentioning that they have autism, which is why they aren't making eye contact and are rocking in their chair. Although that is probably a better reason to not be on the show at all if you are trying to present yourself as a large-scale movement to millions of viewers.

She is aware of her issue and could have chosen to manage it. For instance if she knows she tends to have such coping behaviours she could use a fixed chair and a better camera angle. Or she could have refused the interview altogether as she clearly had no message or insight to pass there was no reason to go on air.

Failing at an action you chose to engage in and then to excuse it by supposed psychological issues is not really what any half-decent person does.

Going out on a limb: Any mildly autistic person aware of their issues takes action to avoid such painful situations. So I would also doubt there is an actual diagnosis and she is just looking for an excuse to not feel/be made responsible for the harm she caused this entire movement.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#105

Post by estaseuropano »

supperburg wrote: post #4

She said she would like to teach critical thinking. How unbelievably rich. The host made the excellent point that in this market, the hardest you will work is determined by how hard people in general are willing to work. The market decides how hard you are expected to work, not your boss or the Illuminati. It’s the same something-for-nothing logic-vacuum that led to communism and the massive corruption that followed.

While I agree on substance with your comment you seem to have a strange interpretation of communism. I very much recommend to read e.g. the brief, very readable and very illuminating Communist Manifesto if you would really like to understand where it came from and what its ideas were before Stalin and Mao made it just a veneer on top of a dictatorship. I'm in no way a communist but I can fully appreciate its ideals and aims (e.g. the idea that everyone should receive resources according to their needs).

Sidenote: it is also worth to actually read Smith (especially books 2+3 of the wealth of nations) to understand that rather than a believer in an invisible hand he was deeply critical of laissez-faire capitalism and saw a need for the state to intervene and manage its excesses and abuses.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#106

Post by tsol »

It's cringe and all but I'm more than anything surprised at how much people care about a throwaway 2 minute segment they filmed so viewers have something to laugh about during the commercials. Fox News really has mastered creating news segments that get people riled up

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#107

Post by bjourne »

ethagknight wrote: post #98
bjourne wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, antiwork is the idea that work is unnatural, forced upon us and not part of what it is to be human. For example, I work in academia so I have lot of personal freedom and I enjoy my work. However, work itself is still forced upon me . I have no practical choice on over whether I should work or not. Antiwork means that you think this is bad and that you should have that choice. Antiwork is not Socialism, it is not…

Curious, forced upon you by whom? if you move somewhere where no one else can force you to work (maybe the wilderness?), then what forces you to work?

People are herd animals so for most (including me) living in the wilderness is not an option. But to participate in society I have to pay the "entrance fee" - to subject myself to work. As a species, we can do better.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#108

Post by SauciestGNU »

llampx wrote: post #81
kova12 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

walking dogs for living is surely a valid life choice, it's just not a type of career you would expect from leader of a movement.

As far as I can see, this person didn't act like a leader of the movement at all except by founding the subreddit and deleting the inevitable spam and porn links. Does they have any posts where they is acting like a leader?

No, but I think that's part of the problem. The movement to abolish or reform work (it's a big tent and I don't agree with everyone or everything about it) is a leaderless movement, but in taking this interview, Doreen set herself up to be perceived as a leader by the movement's enemies (I say "enemies" because the Fox audience is surely hostile to the idea).

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#109

Post by llampx »

ddtaylor wrote: post #14
datavirtue wrote: post #9

Movement? It's a reddit. My favorite reddit, and the only reason I go to Reddit anymore. That is the problem and that's why the fear level of the elites (about unionization) is elevated enough to start running hatchet jobs on a forum.

> It's a reddit. My favorite reddit, and the only reason I go to Reddit anymore. I have never been to that subreddit, what's the regular content about?

Viral cat videos

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#110

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #107
ethagknight wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, forced upon you by whom? if you move somewhere where no one else can force you to work (maybe the wilderness?), then what forces you to work?

People are herd animals so for most (including me) living in the wilderness is not an option. But to participate in society I have to pay the "entrance fee" - to subject myself to work. As a species, we can do better.

Well, I agree we can do better, especially in terms of the fairness of distribution of wealth, but frankly yes, to take part in a society, you either need to 'pay the entrance fee' or have it waived for you.

We generally 'waive' the fee for children, the elderly, and the disabled, but ultimately, right at the very sharp end, some folks HAVE to work so the others have food. So those of us who are not growing food need to produce something of value to trade in order to get food.

The solution we have today (we all contribute our labour in exchange for tokens which can be used to buy food and other things) is significantly better than how it was a couple of hundred years ago (slaves do the work).

Post reply on HN