Live data from Hacker News

Men Without Work (2016)

time.com

411–420 of 471 posts

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#411
post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want the brain surgeon operating on your loved one with his hands later in the day to change his own tire in the snow on the way to the hospital or do you want him to call aaa? Btw the lug nuts are stuck and will need substantial persuading. And it’s on the side of a busy road. Seems extreme to think that guy should change his own tire.

The lugnuts wouldn't be tight because the precision as a brain surgeon would lead him to using a torque wrench last time he rotated his wheels, and of course there should be a set of gloves with the spare tire. And that's to assume he would have a flat; as if he doesn't check his tires regulary. ~ a software engineer with a set of gloves, a manual air pump, full size spare, and extra flashlight in his 18 year old car…

If someone presents a plausible hypothetical situation, one can choose not to answer but changing it with implausible additional assumptions speaks for itself.

surgeons living in areas with winter: fact

surgeons driving to work: unremarkable

Flat tires happening while driving: it happens

Lug nuts being sticky or frozen: it happens

Flat on side of busy road: common

Nails, bolts and road debris causing flats regardless of tire state: unremarkable

Every single, or even a majority, of brain surgeons being avid DIY auto mechanic: not credible.

Why was the bit about the software engineer mentioned? Is it to convey that anyone who isn’t the same as that is wrong? Tons of software engineers don’t have those things. Are they doing it wrong?

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#412
post #361
post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want the brain surgeon operating on your loved one with his hands later in the day to change his own tire in the snow on the way to the hospital or do you want him to call aaa? Btw the lug nuts are stuck and will need substantial persuading. And it’s on the side of a busy road. Seems extreme to think that guy should change his own tire.

If he's a surgeon or a pianist he gets a pass. The exceptions that prove the rule.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_ru...

“ In what Fowler describes as the "most objectionable" variation of the phrase,[1] this sort of use comes closest to meaning "there is an exception to every rule", or even that the presence of an exception makes a rule more true; these uses Fowler attributes to misunderstanding.[1]”

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#413
post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, willingness (and propensity) to use direct violence, and open aggression. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281... 95% of convicted murderers are male, and it’s not the only place with an obvious skew like that.

This is actually a factor I'm less convinced is relevant. A relatively small proportion of casualties are due to small arms fire. Artillery and mortars are the main killers on the battlefield. I doubt willingness to commit criminal homicide is correlated with willingness to lob HE shells to enemy positions kilometers away. I'm not sure if this inspired your post, but On Killing by Dave Grossman was widely influential…

Indeed! Modern artillery and mortars are indeed widely lethal. As are air strikes, missiles, tanks, IFVs, etc.

Boots on the ground are still what hold it though, and that still requires the willingness to do what I was describing, even if they usually aren’t called to do it because other, more effective means do it first.

Being able to handle being in reach of artillery and mortars, also required, once you know the above is true.

Additionally, someone willing to bayonet a stranger is going to really have no issues pulling a lanyard on a howitzer.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#414
post #346
post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For someone with such low karma [...] You have 129. What are you doing criticizing the karma of others? Karma doesn't matter, they're still right: "Please don't post shallow dismissals" > Those guidelines, btw, absolute shit, I'm sorry to say. They degrade the quality of conversation around here by devaluing passionate debate. No, shallow dismissals like what you did are what devalue debate.

The difference is that I'm not claiming to speak for HN and censor voices I don't agree with. That's your job, apparently. In any case, glib dismissals of shallow, condescending arguments are the appropriate response. In point of fact, my response wasn't shallow at all, if you think about it. There's a lot to unpack in considering whether someone's opinions are indistinguishable from something chatGPT might output. E…

It sounds more so that this community has a set of standards and that you are not a culture fit. Have you considered using reddit for your sort of 'passionate debate' ?

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why, but the word 'eugenics' is enough to trigger a thought-terminating cliché. Maybe the GP was being tongue-in-cheek, maybe not, but it's always a strong reaction to this word. I understand it was used as an excuse to justify genocide, but I don't understand why the concept of eugenics is viewed as profoundly immoral by itself. I get that it's a slippery slope, and that's a valid reason to ban it, but…

If the history of the world has taught us anything, it's that any philosophical argument that justifies taking action to "improve" people is inherently dangerous. Eventually such ideas take political form. I can't think of a single example from history where such philosophies weren't eventually used to justify horrible actions. Transhumanism is great if your transhuman. Nazism was great for the Nazis. I don't see muc…

I get that, I understand very well it's a slippery slope. For me it's just a cursor, whereas I think that people pretend there is no cursor, only absolute values.

I guess it's a question of semantics. Because by reading you, using my definition of transhumanism, you're implying that wearing glasses is already a step too far (because it's using technology to improve/fix yourself). But of course I don't think that's what you believe. So clearly, these words are tainted, because we're not talking about the same thing really.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or maybe this is a win for feminism? I understand this is a passing remark, but I want to answer the question anyway. Feminism is not about making men's lives more difficult or about cheering when men struggle. Most feminists believe that gender equality can benefit everyone, including men, by creating a more just society. It is not about oppression or mistreatment of any group, not of even men. Men supporting and…

> Feminism is not about making men's lives more difficult or about cheering when men struggle. Most feminists believe that gender equality can benefit everyone, including men, by creating a more just society. It is not about oppression or mistreatment of any group, not of even men. The problem here is, that in many places, we've gone past equality to clear privilige for women (and other groups, that mostly are not yo…

> On the other hand, there are many support systems from women, from women-only workshops, places, scolarships, sponsorships, to shelters, support groups and treating mental healt issues way differently than with men.

Those do not spawn out of thin air. Groups of people built them. In my region, there are many such projects and when you dig into their origin it's often women who struggled 20 years ago who then landed on their feet and decided to create support networks where there was none.

Nothing is stopping you or your community from doing the same, except strict social gender roles which can and have been broken before.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#417
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or maybe this is a win for feminism? I understand this is a passing remark, but I want to answer the question anyway. Feminism is not about making men's lives more difficult or about cheering when men struggle. Most feminists believe that gender equality can benefit everyone, including men, by creating a more just society. It is not about oppression or mistreatment of any group, not of even men. Men supporting and…

[flagged]

I use deepl to translate from my original language (French). Good catch!

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#418
post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Indeed, and now we know why they're not significant enterprises in any way. This is just factually incorrect. Mondragon has 80k employees and 12 billion euros in revenue. Equal Exchange has 120 employees, $70 million in revenue and national scale distribution. There are absolutely worker cooperates successfully competing at scale. They do have trouble getting financing in a Capitalist economy, but they would not be…

The issue with "one worker one vote" is that it assumes an egalitarian world that couldn't be further from reality. CEO's are in many places overcompensated, sometimes ridiculously so. But the idea that a CNC programmer or engineer should get the same input as the guy pushing a broom around to clean up their part shavings is so absurd that you will never get talented people to take part. This of course means the only…

> The issue with "one worker one vote" is that it assumes an egalitarian world that couldn't be further from reality.

That egalitarianism already exists in every democracy in the world, and everyone just accepts it. The guy working the McDonald's counter gets the same vote as the PhD in Public Policy. It's a feature of democracy and people, historically, will sometimes complain about it but generally accept it as a necessary feature of democracy. I see no reason that, after a transition period, people wouldn't accept it as a necessary feature of democracy in the economic realm as well. Indeed, people working at existing worker cooperatives or employee owned businesses tend to laud and speak very highly of this feature of them.

> How do you expect to prevent someone from starting a private business and structuring it in a non co-op manner? Ultimately, this can only be enforced with violence or the threat of violence, right? So now how do you convince people used to freedom to accept widescale authoritarian violence as being "worth it"?

You are already limited in how you structure businesses and what sort of employment relationships you are legally allowed to enter in to. These are already enforced by law, which is - as you point out - already enforced by violence.

Your choices for business structure (in the US) are sole prioritorship, partnership, LLC, S-corp, or C-corp. You may not hire an employee to work more than 40 hours with out paying them overtime. You may not ask your employees to put themselves in danger in violation of OSHA. You may not enter into an indentured servitude arrangement with someone. The types of employment contracts you are allowed to enter into, and the ways you are allowed to structure your holdings, are limited and structured by law.

People already accept this arrangement as normal and acceptable. And they've already accepted changes in that arrangement as normal and acceptable. I see no reason that they could - again with a transition period - come to accept a new arrangement as normal and acceptable. Especially if it's one that's viewed as more fair, egalitarian, and beneficial to society as a whole.

Most employees are already working in authoritarian contexts with a threat of violence hanging over them For many, many working people - losing their job comes with the threat of serious economic instability - including possible homelessness, hunger, or death. This system has the potential to drastically reduce that. It would limit the freedom of business owners and founders to drastically increase the freedom of the average worker. Seems like a net gain in freedom to me!

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#419

My 2c. Society doesn't care about young men. They're pretty much left to fend for themselves. Hopefully they have a good family structure, and a few good male friends. Without that they're toally adrift. I learned this lesson when I got a flat tire driving across two states when I was 20. No one is willing to help. I guarantee a 20 yo woman would have no problem flagging down help, heck people would stop to help with…

>As a middle aged man strangers I meet expect the worst from me, why should I try? Is there something in your appearance which intimidates people?

Oh boy this question is a hornets nest, but I'll poke it. Of course it's how I come across. If I looked and acted like Tom Cruise I'm sure first impressions would be much different. That's what this is about by the way, first impressions, and only first impressions. We're talking about pre-judgment. We're talking about people assuming I'm something that I'm not. We're talking about stereotypes. You know, cultural stereotypes.

Let me lead this hornets nest with this: I'm trying to be honest and constructive here. I could use outside perspective, as I can only see my situation from within. I've done a lot of thinking on this over the years, asking myself "What is it about the first impression that I'm trying to overcome?" and "What is it I need/want to change?"

As near as I can tell it's because I am (and come across as) a fairly successful, put together, middle aged white man. And my gut tells me that this is because this specific combination of stereotypes "triggers" a common set of automatic defensive mechanisms in people. And so they expect the worst from me out of the gate.

Being a strange man immediately paints you as threat in the eyes of a significant percentage of women. My experience is that you only have one thing on your mind, that you're lying to them to get something etc. When asked why I've been told this straight up by women. I feel bad for what they must have experienced, but I'm still being pre-judged.

The "middle aged guy" part is pretty self explanatory, I represent the old guard, the old flawed thoughts, the patriarchy. If you see me as out of touch, then I'm part of the problem, and so of course you're going to take a defensive posture, maybe even try and set me straight.

Being "put together", people automatically assume you're the successful jerk type that steps on people etc. I'm not showy or in your face, but I do have a certain confident presence. I've been told it's intimidating. Combine that with some likely buried envy and resentment towards achievement, and it makes you an easy target for classist angst. You know, Occupy Wall St. types. I'm not saying that I'm all that, but dang if there aren't a ton of people that subconsciously want to pull you down a peg or two.

Being a white man falls into the current "white man patriarchy bad" trope which is all the rage in Hollywood these days. A year or so ago I was watching a movie (I forget which) with a girl I was seeing that had your standard rich entitled white guy villain you just love to hate on, and the usual group of brave underrepresented people fighting back. At one point during a scene with the evil white guy, she said out loud "You know I'm starting to hate white men". Mind you, this was coming from a white/Jewish woman! I looked at her and was like "Whoa, really? That's kind of offensive as I'm a white man". She said it wasn't about me, which of course it wasn't, but clearly there are significant subconscious cultural forces at play here. As an aside: I swear the Hollywood types are the biggest sexists/racists out there, because they literally cast roles to match pre-conceived race/gender stereotypes. Strong/smart/pretty white woman here, oppressed minority who wont back down there, smart Asian over here. Middle aged white guys have been relegated to harmless "Tim the Tool Man Taylor" idiot types, fat balding police types, or entitled rich dudes. I guess I fall into the latter. sigh

Combine all these things together and yeah, I'm sure it's intimidating on many levels. People don't see me, they see a strawman, the kind our current social climate says "here's the problem". I get this the worst from customer service rep types, who really don't care if someone like me is having a bad day and just needs help. So much time spent trying to overcome these barriers.

I'm not saying woe is me. I know how I come across is my problem. My original comment was just pointing out society doesn't look out for young men. These attitudes I see say more about persistent cultural stereotypes against men than they do about me.

Lastly, yes I'm aware that I also hold these stereotypes, that's why they sting! I can't tell where their stereotype ends, and my presumption of a stereotype from their side begins. But the distrust is real.

Please be constructive here, outside perspective on this is good. I can only see my situation from within.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the history of the world has taught us anything, it's that any philosophical argument that justifies taking action to "improve" people is inherently dangerous. Eventually such ideas take political form. I can't think of a single example from history where such philosophies weren't eventually used to justify horrible actions. Transhumanism is great if your transhuman. Nazism was great for the Nazis. I don't see muc…

I get that, I understand very well it's a slippery slope. For me it's just a cursor, whereas I think that people pretend there is no cursor, only absolute values. I guess it's a question of semantics. Because by reading you, using my definition of transhumanism, you're implying that wearing glasses is already a step too far (because it's using technology to improve/fix yourself). But of course I don't think that's wh…

Not knocking you or general discussion on transhumanism. There's different definitions, and I haven't read up on it enough. Agree that reading glasses isn't a problem, sorry if that's what you thought I was arguing.

The original comment was talking about improving people through genetics and brain tinkering. That's just a modern form of Eugenics, and I thought that we all agreed that this line of thinking doesn't reach anywhere constructive and is best avoided.

Very delicate stuff were talking about here. I'm all for helping cure disease, but some argue that weakens the overall gene pool and opens up the door for superbugs etc. Win a short term battle, lose the war. The stakes are very very high when talking about this stuff. Move fast and break things... just... NO. Much caution.

As I get older, I feel the time is ripe for when the younger generation will make vast sweeping decisions which will end in them relearning the lessons of the past the hard way. Too many voices saying "This time its different" echoing all around me. Too many people willing to tear down too much that has been built. If history isn't learned the easy way, it will be learned the hard way. I guess I'm just throwing out some caution here when dealing with blanket statements about improving humans.

Post reply on HN