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

You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

churchlifejournal.nd.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 243 posts

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#191

Post by AnimalMuppet »

sv9 wrote: post #161
cpr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with democracy is that you end up with mob rule. And as soon as the mob realizes it can vote itself bread and circus, it's all over. The founding fathers said exactly that. And the mob in general is in thrall to the media, which is pretty much a wholly owned operation of the ruling class. So, I guess, in the end, you get what your ruling class wants anyway, with the unwitting mob just a means to its own c…

This is 100% a rightwing talking point, pushed by the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter, and I wish it would go away. Look... if we all want to get along, then we need some way of working together despite disagreements. If 51% of people want to do something, we all must agree that that's okay. Otherwise nothing would ever get done.

You missed one piece - a limited government. The 51% can get what they want, as long as it's within the things that we let government do. If it's outside that, then they need a lot more than 51% - like maybe 3/4 of the states.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#192

Post by LordDragonfang »

enkid wrote: post #32
UncleSlacky wrote: post #21

Money, particularly fiat currency, is a useful fiction. You're not a slave of money as such, it's a tool of enslavement by those who control how much money is allowed to exist and how much is allowed to circulate. As Iain M. Banks put it, "Money is a sign of poverty".

The act of enslavement is in fact a two way street. You have to choose to want whatever you can buy with money in order to be enslaved. It's a choice most people just don't know they are making. For many, it's also a choice that makes sense if they want to survive. Money lets you buy food, clothes, and shelter. Making a choice to be enslaved for those is clear(but still a choice). Making a choice to be enslaved beyon…

"The act of enslavement is in fact a two way street. Enslaved Africans had to choose to not want to be whipped and beaten by their slavemaster for attempting to run away"

When the alternative is not something a reasonable person would choose, it's common courtesy to not pretend it's an actual choice.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#193

Post by seneca »

threatofrain wrote: post #157
cpr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with democracy is that you end up with mob rule. And as soon as the mob realizes it can vote itself bread and circus, it's all over. The founding fathers said exactly that. And the mob in general is in thrall to the media, which is pretty much a wholly owned operation of the ruling class. So, I guess, in the end, you get what your ruling class wants anyway, with the unwitting mob just a means to its own c…

If a democracy wants authoritarianism Nationalist Party then there is no magic mechanism to stop this, and it might be presumptive to even assume that democracy is most morally harmonious and effective configuration of society. I believe China is seriously contending this assumption, as it races ahead of its Asian and European neighbors with respect to economic optimism. Also, political parties appear part and parcel…

China is certainly effective. The willingness to simply murder dissidents makes things much simpler. I struggle to see how anyone could consider China "morally harmonious" though. Their effectiveness seems to be directly at the cost of any morality.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#194

Post by AnimalMuppet »

foldr wrote: post #121
2019-nCoV wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the mark of a charlatan to explain a simple concept in a complex way.

You are seeing conspiracies where there are none. The average humanities professor has spent their life reading books and has a bigger vocabulary than the average programmer. They’re not trying to pull a fast one on you. They just know more words than you do, and are used to talking to people who are familiar with said words. The sad thing is that none of the words in the quoted passage are obscure at all. If you don…

Think instead of the Feynmann Lectures. Part of his genius was being able to boil advanced stuff down to a freshman level. When he couldn't, he said "That means we don't really understand it."

The humanities should aspire to that, rather than (or at least in addition to) "big words for big ideas".

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#195

Post by curiousfiddler »

softwaredoug wrote: post #120
josefresco wrote: post #22

"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."

Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, get smallpox, let doctor do bloodletting, watch everyone around you die After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, get smallpox vaccine, live to play with your kids and watch them grow up...

This resonates with my recent attempts to find meaning and purpose in things I do. As you point out, it's almost the same things I do, but some seemingly small things seem more meaningful...

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#196

Post by noir_lord »

lcall wrote: post #174
lcall wrote: post #166

Having learned for myself that life has a purpose and there is life after death, with a just judge (and merciful, for the merciful), and that all things will be put in good order (my wording, emphasis on good): that all changes everything, for me at least. Today is Easter, when we commemorate the empty tomb....

With any downvotes, I would appreciate a courteous, thoughtful comment. I have not understood the possible harm in what I said, only likely disagreement. Disagreement is OK, but it seems that it could be better to write clearly rather than just quietly hide.

FWIW it’s worth I didn’t downvote you however your assertion of life after death was provided with no evidence but appears that your are asserting your faith as fact.

That will rub some people the wrong way, me among them though not the way it would have once, I’ve someone what mellowed with age.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#197

Post by lcall »

noir_lord wrote: post #196
lcall wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With any downvotes, I would appreciate a courteous, thoughtful comment. I have not understood the possible harm in what I said, only likely disagreement. Disagreement is OK, but it seems that it could be better to write clearly rather than just quietly hide.

FWIW it’s worth I didn’t downvote you however your assertion of life after death was provided with no evidence but appears that your are asserting your faith as fact. That will rub some people the wrong way, me among them though not the way it would have once, I’ve someone what mellowed with age.

Thanks. I can assert that I have learned some things for myself. Details at my web site (linked from my profile--it is a simple site and I hope very navigable/skimmable...).

Edit: I think I have a great deal of compelling evidence that is meaningful to me. Any other person has to decide if it is meaningful to them, but it is extensive (as I have written).

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#198

Post by foldr »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #194
foldr wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are seeing conspiracies where there are none. The average humanities professor has spent their life reading books and has a bigger vocabulary than the average programmer. They’re not trying to pull a fast one on you. They just know more words than you do, and are used to talking to people who are familiar with said words. The sad thing is that none of the words in the quoted passage are obscure at all. If you don…

Think instead of the Feynmann Lectures. Part of his genius was being able to boil advanced stuff down to a freshman level. When he couldn't, he said "That means we don't really understand it." The humanities should aspire to that, rather than (or at least in addition to) "big words for big ideas".

Yes, Feynman was the first person in any discipline to give lectures accessible to a popular audience. Goodness knows why no-one in the whole of the humanities has ever done this.

(There is actually a much longer, and arguably more successful, tradition of humanists engaging with popular audiences. We remember the scientists who were good at it because they were so exceptional.)

I suspect you haven't read the article, which in fact is at the level of a freshman humanities student. Not everything has to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Feynman also wrote plenty of stuff vastly less accessible than this article that you and I wouldn't understand - at least not without investing a lot of time and effort. But God forbid that anyone in the humanities write something that requires you to (gasp!) use a dictionary.

The sheer arrogance and imbecility of the typical attitude towards the humanities on HN is really something to behold. Oh, why can't you all be more like this cool physics dude who we think is God's gift to literature because he dictated some amusing anecdotes about strip clubs and colored paint?

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#199

Post by einpoklum »

hudibras wrote: post #66
peignoir wrote: post #6

It’s ad reductio it’s like saying soccer is pushing a ball. You could also say life is waking up eating sleeping and then death. It’s true but it’s definitely an emotional argument. I preferred the lectures on free will by Conway, it does not answer anything but it allows for a nice réflexion

In every HN comment section, there's always, 100% of the time, at least one person who only reads the title of the piece (in this case, a song lyric from The Verve) and still has the nerve to post a comment.

Well, yes, but to be honest - very often what they have to say is worthwhile even if you've read the piece. :-P

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#200

Post by einpoklum »

wegs wrote: post #18
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Professors don't "live on charity" any more than anyone else with a job does. If you disagree, stop paying them and see how that works out for you.

The majority of their income comes from government subsidies and from charitable donations. At some universities, over time, that's built up into endowments which support professors. That's very much the definition of "live on charity."

Government funding for academia is not "subsidy".

About the charitable donations - you have a point there, but the fact these resources are given rather taken is a problem.

Post reply on HN