| >Are you not saying that people need to be forced to work for their own benefit under the threat of losing their income? What you're saying is: Presumably you would take an antivaxxer to be dishonest by framing a vaccine mandate as "forcibly injecting me with chemicals against my will". This is no different. Stripping context alters the meaning and is dishonest. Notice how you defend this framing instead of just accepting my original words. It's clearly intended to give your argument some rhetorical benefit without needing to be explicit. This is a dishonest debate tactic. One important difference is that no one is forcing anyone to work, that is simply the natural state of existence. There is freedom in battling against nature's cruelty. This is not equal to being forced to work at the end of a whip. Your phrasing doesn't distinguish between the two, mine does. >You're worried about people not needing to work for their financial security, and you're saying it's bad for them if they don't have a requirement to work for their financial security. I'll accept this phrasing. But notice it is importantly different than "being forced to work". >You keep phrasing this like it's a compliment I'm not ascribing any valence in my statements. I am being as neutral and non-judgmental as possible. > but being able to make an honest living and being able to take pride in one's work has nothing to do with one's ability to self actualize. Didn't say it did. Self-actualization is the process by which one derives meaning outside of their work/career. The point was that people who "just want to make an honest living" are generally not the self-actualizers. >the "non-self-actualizers" I know that make an honest living tend to be very involved in their communities. I agree. But the trends against church-going and community participation are steady. There is every reason to think those connections will eventually be severed for the working class folks as well. >Self-actualization is not at all the same thing as whether or not you like academic pursuits. Obviously. But academic pursuits are one avenue for self-actualization that the tech-class points to as ways people will fill the meaning gap in the future. The point is that this avenue is only viable for a relatively small percentage. >Don't phrase that like it's some kind of solidarity to call people unmotivated. That's just projection if anything. I'm interested in describing the world as it actually is so we can have an honest discussion about how not to drive society off a cliff. For some reason its damn near impossible to have honest discussions these days. |
A mandated vaccine means that some people are going to get injected with a chemical against their will, yes. We can quibble over the tone, but it is correctly phrased.
> One important difference is that no one is forcing anyone to work, that is simply the natural state of existence.
If you're actively opposed to efforts to change, then that's a very different situation. The context of this conversation is an author saying they wish GPT didn't exist, because they see GPT automating work as a real possibility.
If someone is opposing an attempt to transition to a post-work society, that is not just being in touch with the natural order -- it is an attempt to keep the natural order as it is. So yeah, I would classify that as playing an active role in forcing people to work. Again, I think that's just an accurate description of the position you're espousing; you might not like the tone, but you are encouraging us not to do anything about that natural state.
> The point was that people who "just want to make an honest living" are generally not the self-actualizers.
I disagree with this entirely. Most "down-to-earth" people I know are more engaged in fulfilling activities outside of work than academics are and have stronger connections to their communities in my experience. I don't think there are any stats to back up the idea that working-class/blue-collar workers are less positioned than tech workers to find meaning outside of work.
I don't just think that it's vaguely insulting to characterize blue-collar workers as if they're somehow more prone to being unable to self-actualize, a process that has nothing to do with one's education level -- I think if anything it might be the opposite. Silicon Valley is rife with people talking about how their companies and achievements define them, and is rife with people asking workers to "put in the grind" and "push through" to make something amazing. And I have never heard a blue-collar worker tell me that their identity and value as a person is based on their job as a sanitation worker.
> But the trends against church-going and community participation are steady.
This is particularly weird to hear, because trends against community participation have a great deal to do with the fact that our society increasingly pressures people to replace those institutions with jobs. There is a strong push to have your friends be your work friends, to have your meaning be what you do in your job.
And the increased drive towards validating ones identity through one's job inherently encourages people to disregard other social institutions or non-economic relationships that don't fit into that framework.
----
> For some reason its damn near impossible to have honest discussions these days.
This conversation has moved from:
> those from the (lets call it) "productive" class are absolutely convinced everyone is like them and if only given the opportunity they would be just as productive and fulfilled as they are. Some of us know better.
to
> What's so insidious about this thinking is that its framed as benevolence. But the mistake is thinking that your way is intrinsically more valuable and so it must be a disparagement to assume that not everyone can reach the intrinsic good that you have reached.
to
> You want to see what people get up to when they have endless free time, just see what idle young men get up to.
to finally
> I'm not ascribing any valence in my statements. I am being as neutral and non-judgmental as possible.
This is some revisionism.