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

We are all animals at night

hazlitt.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 295 posts

Re: We are all animals at night

#251

Post by ses1984 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #178
ses1984 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in power work to marginalize it because they’re threatened by it. It’s pretty successfully marginalized if a woman can get arrested for it even while sacrificing economic profits to a pimp or massage parlor. Maybe the author could have been more explicit about it but to my reading sex workers can’t be both marginalized and calling the shots.

> sex workers can’t be both marginalized and calling the shots Disagree. Calling the shots in the business, not in society. Just like a drug kingpin might be calling the shots in their organization.

Comparing a drug kingpin to a prostitute is kind of ridiculous but if that makes sense in your mind then I doubt we would see eye to eye on pretty much anything.

Re: We are all animals at night

#252

Post by throwawawaw »

whimsicalism wrote: post #228
tuatoru wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This made me laugh out loud, at the sheer political naivete. Office workers earn more because they do jobs more similar to the jobs of those who allocate money.

This is a factor, but to say it is the factor is nonsense. Supply vs demand dynamics very much do exist. I get paid a lot, I also create measurably more than my salary in value.

Supply/demand dynamics do exist. However, it is naive to believe that supply and demand are orthogonal.

Desire is mimetic: you demand what you see others demanding. 99% of everything is either a layer of misdirection or support infrastructure for a layer of misdirection.

Re: We are all animals at night

#253

Post by throwawawaw »

strken wrote: post #213
throwaway22032 wrote: post #123

This article is too left-wing echochamber for my tastes. Of the form - it can be done, and no-one literally dies, therefore it may be done. People don't work to marginalize prostitution because it's "the only field in which women outearn men". People work to marginalize prostitution because it's fundamentally morally bankrupt. Most well adjusted people eventually realise that casual sex is not the key to happiness in…

I don't agree that it's fundamentally morally bankrupt. I do think that in practice it's often highly exploitative, and when a given sex worker might have been lured in by desperation it's immoral to roll the dice. Is that not sufficient reason to work to marginalise it?

It's sufficient reason to work to demarginalise it. Marginalisation enables exploitative practices.

Re: We are all animals at night

#254

Post by vacuity »

throwaway9621 wrote: post #249
vacuity wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suicide is an expression of one's ultimate freedom to one's body, but these acts can have consequences beyond oneself. That goes from "oh well, it's your choice" to "don't drag other people down with you". What of a child born from a prostitute? What of others' safety when driving drunk? What of friends and family who expend mental energy and money? Cut yourself away absolutely or not at all, or perhaps in a more mea…

All that goes without saying. If you are suicidal, please seek help (so you can tell us if there is any.) On the other hand, smashing up some proverbial deck chairs or even breaking a metaphorical Wallace Hartley arm is an acceptable way of making people acutely aware that the ship is, in fact, sinking. >What of a child born from a prostitute IMHO abortion belongs in the list of acts of radical bodily autonomy outlin…

> On the other hand, smashing up some proverbial deck chairs...is an acceptable way of making people acutely aware that the ship is, in fact, sinking.

That seems to err on the side of intentional damage. I don't know how to evaluate destructive protests. I suppose some suicides are clear protests, but I don't think all suicides are, and someone really shouldn't drag others into a mess they made.

> You should try posing that question to the kind of person that works to restrict safe access to it.

Well I'm not that kind of person, and I was referring to a child that was already born.

> What you'll get is a reminder that a great deal of our society doesn't really understand "cause and effect" -- and are completely willing to drag down everyone else through completely socially sanctioned acts, such as political participation.

Perhaps, but that's neither here nor there. Malice, ignorance, and whatnot are serious problems, but their prevalence doesn't justify drunk driving and the like.

Re: We are all animals at night

#255

Post by iameconomist »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #81

Let's get this straight. The person blessed with what is basically a panhandling superpower -- an attractive female body -- somehow says her marks , the ones paying $80, have an entitled attitude toward sexual attention. Pause and think about that. Do you think these guys had a Plan B to buy them an English degree? These places conduct zero-sum economic activity. One person loses money, one person gains money, and no…

>This place: Money in, nothing out.

Well, it has to disappear somewhere, doesn't it? Otherwise why would they need to print more?

I mean, that's how it works, right?

Re: We are all animals at night

#256

Post by throwaway22032 »

phuyngrbrn4 wrote: post #208
throwaway22032 wrote: post #123

This article is too left-wing echochamber for my tastes. Of the form - it can be done, and no-one literally dies, therefore it may be done. People don't work to marginalize prostitution because it's "the only field in which women outearn men". People work to marginalize prostitution because it's fundamentally morally bankrupt. Most well adjusted people eventually realise that casual sex is not the key to happiness in…

Well, to not be morally bankrupt, it takes a sincere will to be decent to others, and a logically coherent set of principles, no? Because the author of this article shows no sign of either, but neither do many of the commenters in this thread who only look at the symptom: "look kids, the stream of consciousness of a not particularly insightful person is being highlighted in the media because it serves a certain polit…

There's a lot here, really the main point here that sticks out to me is this:

> What's morally bankrupt here is that we live in such a way that results in the emergence of a black market for loving touch.

I agree. We don't live this way, though. Some of us do. I see that as being a problem for those people that may require holistic change.

Re: We are all animals at night

#257

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

xcxcx wrote: post #45
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sense pride in cynicism here - and a proud display of ability to generate an unkind take.

Not sure if you'd like a reply styled as Diogenes or as Alexander the Great

No sense in making it more complicated. Might as well stick with 8kunGPT.

Re: We are all animals at night

#258

Post by throwaway22032 »

strken wrote: post #213
throwaway22032 wrote: post #123

This article is too left-wing echochamber for my tastes. Of the form - it can be done, and no-one literally dies, therefore it may be done. People don't work to marginalize prostitution because it's "the only field in which women outearn men". People work to marginalize prostitution because it's fundamentally morally bankrupt. Most well adjusted people eventually realise that casual sex is not the key to happiness in…

I don't agree that it's fundamentally morally bankrupt. I do think that in practice it's often highly exploitative, and when a given sex worker might have been lured in by desperation it's immoral to roll the dice. Is that not sufficient reason to work to marginalise it?

Sure. I don't feel, though, that well adjusted people allow desperation (i.e. poverty) to "lure" them into prostitution. It's more like vulnerable, damaged people.

Everyone I've known who genuinely feels that prostitution is a viable career choice (not just for other people, actually for themselves) has evidently been traumatised in some way, had a rocky upbringing, etc.

In my experience those in poverty are generally more morally oriented than those who are well off. It's often part of the reason that they are skint.

Re: We are all animals at night

#259

Post by vacuity »

throwawawaw wrote: post #250
askonomm wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's something a rational person should do. Self destruction hardly ever is rational however, and it's near impossible to see all of the collateral damage you make when destroying yourself.

Irrationality (own or others') can trap people in situations where self-destruction is the most rational choice. Furthermore, we have a bit of a scoping issue on our hands: we default to assuming that self-preservation is rational. Self-preservation may be rational behavior for animals. But humans are qualitatively different from animals in at least the following aspects: - We have language, which lets us continue ou…

> Irrationality (own or others') can trap people in situations where self-destruction is the most rational choice.

Perhaps, but I made a distinction between plain suicide and other self-destructive behaviors. Is affecting others for selfish reasons a rational choice there? Suicide is both final and most directly individual, which is why I distinguish it.

I'll respond to the rest of your post without pressing the distinction.

> Furthermore, we have a bit of a scoping issue on our hands: we default to assuming that self-preservation is rational.

I think self preservation is sensible as a default. It's ultimately a matter of opinion, but I go off the premise that we live to do whatever it is we choose to do, and therefore self destruction should be a last resort.

> - We have language, which lets us continue our thoughts beyond the immediate moment.

Ignoring the evidence of language in other animals (though you might convince me that human language is more sophisticated), I don't see how this is relevant to justifying self destruction or many other things.

> In that light, many of the relatively irrational choices that we make, can still seem more rational in comparison with an alternative of just sitting around and waiting to die.

"Many" and "an alternative of just...waiting to die" suggest a far greater scale of "rational irrationality" than I think actually occurs. How often are people faced with situations where their only realistic alternative boils down to "waiting to die"?

> "Destruction" is just the process of going from existence to non-existence, and "self-destruction" is just an egosyntonic drive towards non-existence.

Nevermind, I'm bringing up that distinction again. Suicide fits your criterion, but not alcoholism. "Just" is a strong word.

> from a thinking being's perspective

From your perspective, you mean. People have opinions, thank you very much.

> the most rational evaluation of the question of self-destruction

Most rational? Really?

> It's still way easier to see than all of the collateral damage you make when not destroying yourself.

I'm not sure about that, but perhaps.

> All turned to shit, thanks to the presumably rational actions of presumably rational actors pursuing individual self-preservation and prosperity.

You're not wrong to be cynical about that, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about how self-destructive behaviors can be harmful.

> Which is why you see so many young people finding life hardly worth living.

I don't think they would be taking the most rational course of action through suicide. In fact, I highly doubt more can't be done with the their effort than without.

> But of course the prostitutes are to blame /s

Is that really what you got from my comment? It was one example and not slut shaming. Realistically, a child born of a prostitute isn't going to have a great childhood. That might change in the future if society shifts more towards sex workers that are fairly treated, but that's not here.

Re: We are all animals at night

#260

Post by mrdjtek »

Since my ADHD didn't allow me to read this long article, I deferred to Claude.ai to summerize it and allow me to understand all the comments... Here's it is,rewritten in a summerized

For 5 grueling years, the author worked long overnight shifts at a massage parlor in Toronto's industrial area. The 2pm to 2am days brought unpredictable clients and income, requiring emotional and physical intimacy when exhaustion left little to give. Yet amid the job's difficulties, the author found beauty in the simplicity of people's fundamental needs late at night—food, sex, shelter. Stripped of pretense, their raw desires connected them in basic human instinct and experience.

A sense of community existed among fellow night workers—at the parlour, driving cabs, serving food. Brief moments conveyed camaraderie: a knowing glance, an extra pastry. The author sorely missed this unspoken bond after leaving for corporate office work. The professional world felt disconnected compared to the pack she once travelled with.

The overnight world is dismissed as "low skill," but takes great skill to handle unpredictability and confrontations with grace when exhausted. The author developed deep respect for those keeping cities running 24/7 through their undervalued labor.

Though difficult, the ephemeral moments of care and understanding within that transient world meant something real. Like the taxi driver gently ensuring her safe passage home in a snowstorm. The coffee shop server passing extra sugar despite her unconventional attire.

Years later, the author still reflects fondly on the stories and bonds built while working nights. The brief connections and wordless care showed her a beautiful side of humanity she hasn't experienced since.

Post reply on HN