/r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification • Hacker News Board

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#211

Post by wing-_-nuts » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

gavinray wrote: post #182

JSavageOne wrote: post #156

I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…

>Universal basic income I'm going to sound like I'm being snarky here, and I promise I'm not. How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I don't say this from a place of privilege. I grew up lower class trailer trash and have been homeless. Maybe I don't understand the concept fully but it seems a bit absurd and unfeasible

You cut most of our bureaucratic social safety net (food stamps, disability, social security, etc) and replace it with a system where everyone gets enough for the bare basics. If you were smart, you'd fund it with a carbon tax.

In all honesty I don't see UBI becoming a thing until we start automating ourselves into unemployment. People say this would increase inflation. Maybe. Let's trial it with 1% of the population and find out.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#212

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

> …people start calling those who say they don’t want to work at all are infiltrators meant to discredit the sub.

This is one of the most frustrating things I see on HN and reddit. People dismiss large parts of the community as infiltrators and bots and paid shills and astroturfers. I’d bet that for every bot/infiltrator/whatever there’s a thousand times more actual humans dismissed as bot/infiltrator/whatever.

There’s literally no way to further dehumanize someone else’s thoughts than to say that they aren’t real people presenting real thoughts.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#213

Post by BitwiseFool » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

Valgrim wrote: post #163

gruez wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. I have a hard time figuring out whether: 1) all the people who are saying "no we don't really mean defund the police" are just the moderate elements battling it out with the extreme elements (eg. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol... ) 2) most of them…

I think it was always pretty clear that the movement as a whole advocated redistribution of resources toward less violent and more efficient alternatives to police, like better social programs and mental health resources. Relying on the police to prevent crime is like relying on firefighters to prevent fires or paramedics to prevent injuries. Sure they have a role to play, but logically they should only be the last r…

From my own experience, and the discussions I had with my peers, the specific term "defund" does not imply advocating redistribution. I sense that in the vernacular "defund" means to stop paying for something and the implication is you are getting rid of whatever is no longer being funded. Defund also tends to be used for line-items and programs rather than organizations and departments, which adds to the confusion.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#214

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

honkdaddy wrote: post #129

BitwiseFool wrote: post #40

This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. Like AntiWork, It seems to have been started by those who genuinely wanted to abolish the police. But as time went on people joined who instead wanted to reform the police by dramatically cutting back what they were meant to respond to. But the slogan stayed, and was very mislea…

Here in Canada, many of those same voices are now begging the Ottawa police to take on a _more_ violent and confrontational approach in response to the ongoing protest. The hypocrisy is absolutely surreal to me.

I'm sure you could find some folks in the world who would support that for any protest, but most just want the Ottawan ones to stop honking, stop blocking, stop whining, achieve their political ends via democratic means, vs. by force, and suck it up when they're unable to convince enough people to subscribe to their newsletter.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#215

Post by mannerheim » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

diogenesjunior wrote: post #171

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you eat the cake, you can no longer possess it EDIT: Let me make it more clear, as English may not be your first language, if you're asking this question in truth (I sometimes miss sarcasm online, sorry). Cakes can be beautiful things which people (of a certain time period, especially) wanted to show off as a sign of their wealth, as refined sugar was expensive. Once it was eaten, you could no longer display suc…

i hate how americans always assume we are from there and understand everything they say

There's a similar idiom in a couple different languages. The French supposedly say 'avoir le beurre et l’argent du beurre' (have the butter and the money from [selling] the butter), and I once recalled hearing that there was a Spanish idiom along the lines of having a chicken in both the pot and in the yard, but alas I'm not able to find that phrase.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#216

Post by Karawebnetwork » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

foverzar wrote: post #52

What is "sanewashing"? English is not my native language and I am having genuine trouble locating the definitions. The top 1 result in google is this very linked article.

It is internet lingo and I would not recommend using it contexts other than describing internet events/drama. Even in that context, I personally would only use it carefully while quoting someone else. It does not create productive conversations as it automatically casts the opposite party as "insane".

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#217

Post by hannasanarion » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

fullshark wrote: post #180

smus wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. What? It always meant lower police funding. If it meant abolish the police, the slogan would have been abolish the police

I think if you asked 100 people what it meant at its heyday maybe 70-80 would say "abolish the police." Connotation of words and all that. Just for humor's sake, google dictionary definition of defund is "prevent from continuing to receive funds" thus kill/abolish.

And those same people would happily call for legislation to defund sanctuary cities, defund education, defund planned parenthood, defund medicaid, with the full understanding that the proposals aren't intended to wipe those things from the face of the earth.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#218

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:47 PM UTC

zqfm wrote: post #72

kvuj wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the very force of the reddit hivemind. I have no interest in /r/antiwork nor their ideologies, but they kept popping up on /r/all, so they get a constant influx of people aligned with the reddit mean opinion, which in turn changes the original community. That's what I like about 4chan. In a sea of ungodly acidic garbage lies a golden heart of contrarianism. The posters will argue for a side one day, and 2 ho…

I used to love the 4chan-style contrarian attitude until, in high school people I knew were killed in Iraq. Then I started to realize that those kinds of nihilist attitudes have real-world consequences. Since then, that attitude has become mainstream (or perhaps just my awareness of it) and following has been a constant trail of death and misery. I can't not take it seriously anymore when my friends and loved ones ar…

[deleted]

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#219

Post by arrosenberg » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:47 PM UTC

gavinray wrote: post #182

JSavageOne wrote: post #156

I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…

>Universal basic income I'm going to sound like I'm being snarky here, and I promise I'm not. How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I don't say this from a place of privilege. I grew up lower class trailer trash and have been homeless. Maybe I don't understand the concept fully but it seems a bit absurd and unfeasible

The ideal way would be to pass a national Land Value Tax, and use the proceeds to fund UBI. The country has plenty of money, but it's all accumulating to landlords. An LVT is the most effective way to both moderate the excesses of the wealthy and continuously fund a social safety net. It would also let you eliminate most other forms of social safety and taxation, since Land/Natural Resources are the greatest stores of value.

Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification

#220

Post by BoppreH » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:47 PM UTC

Deliberately misleading article. The community was mad at Doreen because they held a vote on whether to send someone to the Fox interview, and the consensus was NO. She violated an explicit choice of the community, and this complaint has been clearly articulated from day 1 of the aftermath.

No mention of it in the article, though.

And even the small things are misleading:

> the classic thread “whats your job on the leftist commune??”[1], in which everyone plans to lead discussion on theory and make lattes and there’s nary a Coal Mining Enjoyer to be found

That's blatantly false. Second column, next to last tweet:

> Hard labor. Something rewarding I can do with my hands. Maybe something intellectual later in life. I'm just tired and don't want to think too hard right now in my life.

You can argue about how many hard laborer will be necessary, and how quickly this user would change their mind, but this is not what the article is arguing.

I didn't find the post an honest description of the event. Flagged.

[1] https://i.redd.it/xi839vo8uml71.png