[dead]
Are we the baddies?
531–540 of 554 posts
Re: Are we the baddies?
#532Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The active meddling thing, when observed in action, is a source of information. Not if it's done right. If one person views a page the old-fashioned way, caches the DOM, and circulates it peer-to-peer, then whoever is weaponizing that content only has one browser fingerprint to work with, despite there being potentially thousands of users that they wish they could profile. That's far less information to work with t…
We're talking about different things. You need to imagine a surveillance system that you cannot lie to, and cannot avoid or replace. It will be there, no way of escaping it. Sattelites, network monitoring, doesn't matter. Assume it exists. Anyone in control of such hypothetical systems can act upon the surveillance information to manipulate a target (not only observe it). This could be done in several ways. LLM bots…
I suppose we are. I generally assume that someone, somewhere, has something to hide: something that benefits me if they're allowed to keep it hidden. History is full of these characters, they keep the establishment in check, prevent it from treating the rest of us too badly.
If the powers that be could know with certainty that all of us planned to behave and would never move against them (or could neutralize those who had been honest about their intent to do so), then I think things would be much worse for the common folk than they are now. It's hard not to see your strategy as a path to that outcome.
Re: Are we the baddies?
#533Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about different things. You need to imagine a surveillance system that you cannot lie to, and cannot avoid or replace. It will be there, no way of escaping it. Sattelites, network monitoring, doesn't matter. Assume it exists. Anyone in control of such hypothetical systems can act upon the surveillance information to manipulate a target (not only observe it). This could be done in several ways. LLM bots…
I suppose we are. I generally assume that someone, somewhere, has something to hide: something that benefits me if they're allowed to keep it hidden. History is full of these characters, they keep the establishment in check, prevent it from treating the rest of us too badly. If the powers that be could know with certainty that all of us planned to behave and would never move against them (or could neutralize those wh…
> keep the establishment in check
The ultimate subversion of the estabilishment is raw honesty. Honesty produces an environment that disables unjust distribution of power.
> never move against them
That's inaction, not honesty.
> It's hard not to see your strategy as a path to that outcome.
That's ok, my strategy does not require you to understand it. I don't need to create informative material or convince people.
Re: Are we the baddies?
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What? No, you're not hurting anyone. You are, and it's objective. Does this worker have more, or less, money than before? It's not a matter of opinion. The answer is less, and we know that's the answer because that's specifically what you're seeking out. What you're arguing is if this harm is justified. Maybe, maybe not. In your opinion, it is. My opinion is that the marginal effects of me not tipping will have zer…
You're hurting me right now by not tipping me for this comment. I expect at least $100 in order to not feel hurt.
You're correct, you are more hurt than if I gave you 100 dollars. Duh, this is obvious.
Consider the negation: you’re not hurt if I give you 100 dollars. Or, rephrased, you're better off if I give you 100 dollars. Is this true? Yes. If I queried all 7.5 billion people on Earth, they’d all say yes.
Again, the tricky part is I don't care. That's a different thing.
Re: Are we the baddies?
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What? No, you're not hurting anyone. You are, and it's objective. Does this worker have more, or less, money than before? It's not a matter of opinion. The answer is less, and we know that's the answer because that's specifically what you're seeking out. What you're arguing is if this harm is justified. Maybe, maybe not. In your opinion, it is. My opinion is that the marginal effects of me not tipping will have zer…
You're hurting yourself when you tip. You have, objectively, less money than before. Ergo, tipping is self-harm.
Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is and it's not up for debate.
Like I said, the rules are stupid but, for now, I play by them.
You might as "why are you hurting yourself?". Because I can afford to hurt myself, the waiter probably can't. 5 bucks is a drop in the bucket for me, but, presumably, not for them.
And, on the topic of self-harm, we all make decisions every day that harm us. We sometimes get something in return, but often we don’t. We do it purely for the benefit of other people, often people we don’t know and will never see again.
Consider holding a door open. For me, I get in the building 10 seconds later. That’s worse than getting in the door 10 seconds earlier. What did I gain? Nothing. Some stranger got 100% of the benefit, with nothing for me.
Re: Are we the baddies?
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose we are. I generally assume that someone, somewhere, has something to hide: something that benefits me if they're allowed to keep it hidden. History is full of these characters, they keep the establishment in check, prevent it from treating the rest of us too badly. If the powers that be could know with certainty that all of us planned to behave and would never move against them (or could neutralize those wh…
> keep the establishment in check The ultimate subversion of the estabilishment is raw honesty. Honesty produces an environment that disables unjust distribution of power. > never move against them That's inaction, not honesty. > It's hard not to see your strategy as a path to that outcome. That's ok, my strategy does not require you to understand it. I don't need to create informative material or convince people.
> Honesty produces an environment that disables unjust distribution of power
How does this work?
Re: Are we the baddies?
#537Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What? No, you're not hurting anyone. You are, and it's objective. Does this worker have more, or less, money than before? It's not a matter of opinion. The answer is less, and we know that's the answer because that's specifically what you're seeking out. What you're arguing is if this harm is justified. Maybe, maybe not. In your opinion, it is. My opinion is that the marginal effects of me not tipping will have zer…
No, you're bloody well not. You as an average external consumer did not create the exploitative culture of low wages for hospitality staff or make any one of them join that culture by seeking employment there. There's nothing objective about what you argue except that it's objectively mistaken in its blame. Playing by stupid "rules" (which these aren't in any case, they're social tendencies that can be slowly changed…
It's not topsy-turvy at all, it's very simple and straightforward logic.
Again: does the worker have less, or more, money than before if you don't tip? It's not a trick question, it's not a rhetorical question, it's a very simple question.
Okay... they have less. So, the worker is worse off when you don't tip. Again, what you're arguing is that's okay and justified. Which is fine, and lots of people will agree.
> The worker having less money has nothing to do with any fault of your own.
This is blatantly not true.
When you don't tip 5 dollars, the waiter does not have 5 dollars. Who did not give them that 5 dollars? You.
You're arguing that isn't your responsibility. That's a different argument. But who didn't give it to them? You.
> The owner of the place is however literally underpaying because they're hoping to guilt you into subsidizing part of wages, and convincing their employees that this is the correct thing.
Correct, this is exactly right. And, I agree with you: this is absolutely what is happening. I want this to end 100%.
But, in my opinion, I do not believe, personally, for me, in my life, that I will be enacting any change or furthering this cause in any way by not tipping. So, for me, I tip.
If you do not want to tip, I think that's fine. Go for it. What you cannot claim is that this doesn't hurt your particular waiter. Obviously it does, you made his night a little bit worse. If you still don't believe me, just ask next time, the waiter will tell you.
And, notice my wording here, it’s very careful. That particular waiter is worse off. It’s possible to help waiters, as a group, as a collective, while simultaneously harming that particular waiter. You believe you’re deconstructing or undermining tipping as a system, ergo helping waiters as a whole. But in the process, you’re hurting that particular waiter.
Re: Are we the baddies?
#538Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are, but they're correct that attitudes have changed. People largely do not want to be approached in public and actively take steps to make sure it doesn't happen. Simple things like not making eye contact, or wearing headphones everywhere. The reason men don't approach women in public anymore isn't some crazy conspiracy or anything - it's because women have told them to stop. Both implicitly through behavior an…
> The reason men don't approach women in public anymore isn't some crazy conspiracy or anything Respectfully: no, this is just an excuse. I don't know where y'all lost the plot but when I was growing up it was widely considered that how you talked to other people was a skill. Skills require practice. There's a billion people out there. Not everyone you meet is going to be against you talking them up. Do the work, lol
I agree. That doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy, that means society has changed. Not am I saying people shouldn’t approach others. I’m saying it’s harder, which it is and I think you agree with.
Re: Are we the baddies?
#539Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, being shortsighted ignores the rubber band effect that then disproportionately hurts those people down the road.
The arguments against UBI are pretty much the same against rising minimum wages. That being, the baseline just moves, so everything gets more expensive, so the situation doesn't improve at all. It intuitively makes sense, and like most economic reasoning it's horribly simple. But economics is comprised to two parts: theory, and practice. Practice always trumps theory. If practice defies your theory, it doesn't mean t…
A descriminator between minimum wage and ubi is location.
UBI (if people trust that it will continue) will encourage people moving out of the cities as they don't need to be close to jobs.
I would hypotheses that this would 1) create new more local economies (where people can earn money) and 2) reduce pressure on the hyper metropols.
I would even hypothesize that because of this, it would have an adverse effect on the cost of living.
Butnthese a theories.
Re: Are we the baddies?
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. Can you expand a bit on what your reasoning is so we can understand where you come from?
I guess I should have specified financial benefit. You wouldn't pay someone else to insure a common vegetable, because it is so low cost that if it turned out to be bad, you would just buy another one (or have bought extra as your insurance). When you buy from Walmart/Target/Amazon/Best Buy, they will try to sell you insurance for a $30 toaster or other cheap appliance. Again, most people will not buy this because th…
That is really not how the insurance seller's business model works.
Think about it this way: on a given year, they are collecting "Sales" amount of money from their pool of customers. For the insurer to make a profit, the amount reimbursed to legit claims simply has to be less than Sales-Expenses that year, which basically translates to having Z customers claims on any given year where Z So it's a bit like a Ponzi scheme, whereby you can benefit as a customer if you pay year 1 and get a claim during year 1 or 2 for example, and the insurer can benefit too if many customers pay "a year in advance" (money that can be invested) before having their claims fall on years 2 or 3 (or never).