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

141–150 of 204 posts

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

#141

Post by bjourne »

robot_no_419 wrote: post #135
bjourne wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why should I have to pay the entrance fee and why should I have to work? Unless you believe axiomatically that everyone "should" work there is no rational reason why everyone should work. Hunter gatherers didn't work. They hunted, gathered food, took care of the children and whatnot but they decidedly did not work. But now, thousands of years later, we're devoting most of waking hours to work. That's not progress…

"But why should I have to pay the entrance fee and why should I have to work?" You don't have to, nobody is forcing you to work. If you want to dumpster dive and live on the streets you never have to work. Plenty of people live like this. You choose to work because it's the easiest way for you to support the lifestyle you want to live. What you're really asking is "why won't society give me nice things while I do not…

You claim that work is optional because you can choose not to work and become a homeless bum? That to me seems like a facetious argument.

The only time global CO2 emissions significantly decreased was when people stopped working due to the Covid pandemic. Thus, I think the evidence is against your claim that we would all be worse off.

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

#142

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #140
bjourne wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why should I have to pay the entrance fee and why should I have to work? Unless you believe axiomatically that everyone "should" work there is no rational reason why everyone should work. Hunter gatherers didn't work. They hunted, gathered food, took care of the children and whatnot but they decidedly did not work. But now, thousands of years later, we're devoting most of waking hours to work. That's not progress…

I think you’re completely wrong about progress. We can travel in less than 24 hours to pretty much anywhere on the planet. We can put telescopes in space. We can speak to each other even when we’re in different cities. None of this would be possible if no-one worked. Either we all go back to being hunter gatherers, or we exploit the poor to do our fair share of the work that needs to be done for us to live the lifest…

Well, I think technological progress is driven by human ingenuity and not work.

I don't think work should be the entrance fee to society. You're saying that if I don't work then bad things should happen to me. I should starve (since I can't hunt nor grow vegetables) and I should not have a computer or even electricity. I.e. I should be punished. I don't see how that improves my life or society.

I think these ideas rub you the wrong way because your identity is tied to your work. If people see work as a problem rather than a solution then your status would evaporate. The guy working part-time as a dog walker and sleeps through most of it would be on an equal footing to you who work XX hours per week and earns $YYYk dollars per year.

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

#143

Post by robot_no_419 »

bjourne wrote: post #141
robot_no_419 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But why should I have to pay the entrance fee and why should I have to work?" You don't have to, nobody is forcing you to work. If you want to dumpster dive and live on the streets you never have to work. Plenty of people live like this. You choose to work because it's the easiest way for you to support the lifestyle you want to live. What you're really asking is "why won't society give me nice things while I do not…

You claim that work is optional because you can choose not to work and become a homeless bum? That to me seems like a facetious argument. The only time global CO2 emissions significantly decreased was when people stopped working due to the Covid pandemic. Thus, I think the evidence is against your claim that we would all be worse off.

If you're a homeless bum you'll have all the free time in the world to draw and make music and read and hang out with friends. That's what you want, right? You sound pretty classist asserting the life of a bohemian is beneath you. Sounds like you do really want nice things. Well, everyone wants nice things. That's why we came up with a fair system to allocate nice things to people who pay for nice things. If nobody works, nobody has nice things.

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

#144

Post by Graffur »

krapp wrote: post #79
Graffur wrote: post #77

As usual with stories like this, everyone taking part comes across badly. Fox, the interviewer and the Reddit mod. The anti-work movement is goodin the sense that it is waking people up to spending all their lives working for terrible bosses and companies. Should peoples lives be hard just so we can make other rich people richer? So they can live in giant houses, by the sea? So they can own multiple vehicles and fly…

>The anti-work movement is goodin the sense that it is waking people up to spending all their lives working for terrible bosses and companies. It didn't wake anyone up to anything - everyone except perhaps the entitled rich has been perfectly aware of this ever since the days of the Industrial Revolution. Go watch Metropolis, made in 1927, where the plight of the working class is illustrated as oppressed factory work…

People are generally told.. go to school, pass exams, go to college, pass exams, get a job, buy a house, etc. I surmise that the anti-work movement has pulled people out of that way of life.

It's not just about not working. It's about entrepreneurship, working for better companies, smaller companies/startups. It's about not getting so far in debt that you're a slave to a megacorp because you need to pay it off.

It's about not over working and burning out.

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

#145

Post by bjourne »

robot_no_419 wrote: post #143
bjourne wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim that work is optional because you can choose not to work and become a homeless bum? That to me seems like a facetious argument. The only time global CO2 emissions significantly decreased was when people stopped working due to the Covid pandemic. Thus, I think the evidence is against your claim that we would all be worse off.

If you're a homeless bum you'll have all the free time in the world to draw and make music and read and hang out with friends. That's what you want, right? You sound pretty classist asserting the life of a bohemian is beneath you. Sounds like you do really want nice things. Well, everyone wants nice things. That's why we came up with a fair system to allocate nice things to people who pay for nice things. If nobody w…

Ok boomer. :)

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

#146

Post by robot_no_419 »

bjourne wrote: post #145
robot_no_419 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a homeless bum you'll have all the free time in the world to draw and make music and read and hang out with friends. That's what you want, right? You sound pretty classist asserting the life of a bohemian is beneath you. Sounds like you do really want nice things. Well, everyone wants nice things. That's why we came up with a fair system to allocate nice things to people who pay for nice things. If nobody w…

Ok boomer. :)

I'm not even 30, born to poor immigrants who didn't graduate from school, and I own my own property that I paid for with my hard work >;)

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

#147

Post by NeutralCrane »

bjourne wrote: post #119
d1sxeyes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But why should I have to pay the entrance fee and why should I have to work? Unless you believe axiomatically that everyone "should" work there is no rational reason why everyone should work. Hunter gatherers didn't work. They hunted, gathered food, took care of the children and whatnot but they decidedly did not work. But now, thousands of years later, we're devoting most of waking hours to work. That's not progress…

Because society isn't a free resource, it requires time and effort (i.e. work) to create and maintain, and that work can either be distributed across its members, or it can be done entirely by some and others simply mooch off of their work. If you feel like work is disproportionately done by some and not others, or that some work creates no value, that's a valid argument and worth exploring. But the idea that people should just be free to consume societal benefits without contributing to those benefits is obviously flawed. It assumes you should be free to personally consume, but others will be required to work to provide you with the goods and services you are consuming, meaning the ability to opt out of work isn't available to all. At that point it becomes clear that people with this particular anti-work view don't actually have issues with the current capitalist system in which some coerce others to labor and exploit the benefits, they simply have an issue that they aren't in the position to do the exploiting.

Perhaps that kind of utopia becomes more feasible when we become a society in which everything is completely automated, but we aren't anywhere close to that, so in the meantime, everybody should be expected to contribute.

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

#148

Post by dnadler »

bjourne wrote: post #142
d1sxeyes wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re completely wrong about progress. We can travel in less than 24 hours to pretty much anywhere on the planet. We can put telescopes in space. We can speak to each other even when we’re in different cities. None of this would be possible if no-one worked. Either we all go back to being hunter gatherers, or we exploit the poor to do our fair share of the work that needs to be done for us to live the lifest…

Well, I think technological progress is driven by human ingenuity and not work. I don't think work should be the entrance fee to society. You're saying that if I don't work then bad things should happen to me. I should starve (since I can't hunt nor grow vegetables) and I should not have a computer or even electricity. I.e. I should be punished. I don't see how that improves my life or society. I think these ideas ru…

I think what most people are saying is that if you're not working to feed yourself, then someone else is. And further, it's not fair to ask society to pick up the slack for people who could contribute, but choose not to.

In other words: by saying you shouldn't starve for refusing to work, aren't you also saying that someone else should grow your food for you for free?

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

#149

Post by bjourne »

NeutralCrane wrote: post #147
bjourne wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why should I have to pay the entrance fee and why should I have to work? Unless you believe axiomatically that everyone "should" work there is no rational reason why everyone should work. Hunter gatherers didn't work. They hunted, gathered food, took care of the children and whatnot but they decidedly did not work. But now, thousands of years later, we're devoting most of waking hours to work. That's not progress…

Because society isn't a free resource, it requires time and effort (i.e. work) to create and maintain, and that work can either be distributed across its members, or it can be done entirely by some and others simply mooch off of their work. If you feel like work is disproportionately done by some and not others, or that some work creates no value, that's a valid argument and worth exploring. But the idea that people…

Workfree societies have existed so it is incorrect to claim that work is required for society to exist. For example, the free software community exists and is workfree. However, it seems you and many others are incapable to rationally reason about these issues since you implied that "people with this particular anti-work view" (i.e. me) just wants to be the ones doing the exploiting. It's plain as day that a massive number of jobs are not necessary. The conclusion should be that people shouldn't be coerced to do them.

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

#150

Post by NoPicklez »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #103
NoPicklez wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Okay, but be realistic. If I quit my job tomorrow, it wouldn't be long before I could no longer afford rent. What you're proposing might be true, but that's currently not how society is at the moment.

No, this person wanted to teach philosophy, not be philosophical themselves. Please watch the interview.

A lifetime of sleep walking dogs could lead to enlightenment, if that was the case and this person did believe that then they would have said that their passion was walking dogs because it provides them with philosophical thought.

Post reply on HN