Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bmhin 1604 days ago
If your "default" reading of any sociopolitical proposal is to assume it is an absolutist desire and not one more nuanced or practical under the hood, you have a wrong default.

"Defund the police" meaning "zero funds for the police" or "no police exist". "Anti-work" meaning "against all work" or "work" meaning "general expenditure of productive effort" or something.

You can look a little bit more into any slogan or label and see more of what it entails. Hell, some people might want to abolish police entirely or have everyone laze around in utopian bliss while not starving. Feel free to disagree with the former and see if the latter have any plan to not starve or if it's nonsense. I've generally taken each to mean "we should allocate public security and safety money differently" and "our current construct of the job as the sole driver of societal worth is bad".

So "default" to something more reasoned and nuanced and see if they are absolutist rather than the reverse. Pithy and descriptive tend to not go hand in hand so this applies often.

1 comments

> If your "default" reading of any sociopolitical proposal is to assume it is an absolutist desire and not one more nuanced or practical under the hood, you have a wrong default.

Why would anyone "assume nuance" from explicit language? There's no ambiguity about what it says at face value.

Even proponents can't keep it straight in this case. An above user suggests it means "People should not have to work to live. ", whereas the anti-work sub's faq describes its mission as being "against work under Capitalism". To the extent that one labors under Socialism, they labor to live, if History is any indication. Notwithstanding, "living" can practically mean more than just subsistence since, obviously, no one supporting anti-work is starving. They're thinking about comfort and quality of life, not merely survival, and this is deliberately conflated. They can all quit their jobs and survive. Moreover, basic income, once it is implemented, would allow citizens to be consumers and purchase more comforts without working even in a Liberal democratic Capitalist society - that isn't contingent on Socialism at all.

If your buzzword means whatever it is you want it to mean, and others persistently don't interpret it the same way, then it's a failure. It only succeeds at increasing friction.