Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by notus 2485 days ago
I think this is pretty on point. You have a lot of disaffected people who want something to change but don't see a reasonable path for the type of change they want. Instead they just make decisions towards the most amount of change, even if it isn't good change.
1 comments
krapp 2485 days ago
>they just make decisions towards the most amount of change, even if it isn't good change.

How is seeking the maximum amount of possible change, regardless of its nature and to no specific end not a "need for chaos?"

Someone who doesn't know what they want, other than to spite the system, basically describes the Joker.

link
notus 2485 days ago
Think of them as being lost in a forest trying to find a path out and constantly looking for higher ground to climb to see if they can see a path out of the forest. They never know if the hill they are climbing is going to provide the view they need, but they still climb hoping it does.
link
pnutjam 2485 days ago
There is no hope in what they are doing, it's a classic "if I can't nobody can".
link
notus 2484 days ago
That's a pretty terrible reduction of the problem that prevents any further engagement. You cannot solve problems by ostracizing people.
link
candiodari 2484 days ago
What I feel you're failing to consider is that less further engagement may in fact be the preferable option, at least from their perspective. They feel like they are able to survive and change their own situation for the better, but just that others are in the way and make this impossible. So no, they're not looking for engagement.

That doesn't make their assessment of the situation wrong. It just makes it very inconvenient for government workers (whose jobs depend on said engagement) and people who want to virtue signal from afar. They feel like the policies, that by necessity are cheapest-possible-forced-help-from-10000-feet policies are more of an obstacle than help. Frankly, I can come up with more than a few cases where this was entirely right.

Of course, it also doesn't make their assessment of the situation right. Those same policies help people on a large scale as well.

However I would like to point out that there is a lot of research that less intrusive, and more unconditional help certainly seems to be more effective in quite a few places. A few random examples:

1) https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/sep/14/less...

2) Even in what seems like black and white cases. To take one really extreme example. NOT helping kids who get abused by parents ... turns out to be more effective than helping them https://sci-hub.tw/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583

(and there's a famous study from the 90s that claims that giving troubled kids free membership to a sports club near them is far more effective than anything psychiatry/social work/... can do for them, and certainly more effective than prison. Not even checking if they actually attend)

link