Comment by permo-w
13 days ago
They're suggesting that you listen to and address the points they made rather than simply rephrase your original viewpoint.
I'd suggest you try to understand that psychological problems are real and that you only get one brain. You may say "you don't understand poverty", but it equally sounds like you don't understand trauma and psychological issues. You only get one brain and life is about being happy. If you rise out of poverty, but you're less happy than you were, is that better? It sounds like it is for you as long as they stop voting for candidates you don't like. It's easy to not care about people's happiness if they don't vote for the candidates you like, right?
Can you address the point I made where farmers suicides happen because of material poverty?
If you saw that my main point was that metaphysical concerns of “trauma” and “psychological issues” are a non issue for people who don’t have food on their plate.
> If you rise out of poverty, but you're less happy than you were, is that better?
Who are you to suggest they are less happy than otherwise? They took that decision voluntarily. I’m also suggesting that it’s the best decision.
You seem to think you have a better alternative for those people. Pray tell me, what is it that you are suggesting? What would you have rather done if you were the poor mother in middle of nowhere India and you had 6 children with complete lack of material stability. You would have rejected it?
If it were me or my friends or family- I would have definitely taken the job or adviced my friends to take it.
Apologies for inserting myself into this exchange, but I'd like to point out something that both your primary interlocuter seem to be overlooking.
> They took that decision voluntarily
Doesn't really describe the experience of the woman in the original article. She took a job in "data classification" which was initially boring but benign. Then her job assignments changed to reviewing NSFW and NSFL content that she herself recognized as psychologically harmful, without a pay increase, or affordance for her discomfort. In fact, the altered nature of her job was callously dismissed: "it's still data classification"!
I could probably agree with you that there's a market-clearing price where reviewing disturbing material becomes a worthwhile sacrifice for some to take, or even an actual opportunity for people psychologically suited to the work, but an informed, freely-taken choice is not the situation described. That's the exploitation that I see in this story.
> Who are you to suggest they are less happy than otherwise?
Who are you to assume they always are? Once again, you're just dismissing the problems away.
> They took that decision voluntarily.
As if nobody in the history of the world took a deal that turned out to be bad for them. A voluntary choice does not inherently imply that the choice made them better off.
Regardless, you've completely ignored the last sentence of my original reply, but I'll try to spell it out for you. The neocolonialist objection does not boil down to, take these women's jobs away and make people in the corporation's home country do it. It is primarily a critique of the society that benefits from or depends on labor its own members consider unacceptable or beneath them. It is inherently exploitative by that society's own standards, and retaining such an economy is either unsustainable or incentivizes the perpetuation of the conditions which allow it to exploit. In other words, the US has a vested interest in making sure some people are always poor and desperate enough to do the jobs it doesn't want to do.
You’ve ignored my point on material poverty leading to suicides again. This means you can’t appreciate that Indians suffer mostly from people lack of money than anything else.
> As if nobody in the history of the world took a deal that turned out to be bad for them. A voluntary choice does not inherently imply that the choice made them better off
I’m suggesting that it’s the best decision for them. They’ve clearly taken the decision so they also think the same. I asked you for alternatives, or what you could have rather done but you’ve not answered. Maybe consider that it’s the best option for them?
> In other words, the US has a vested interest in making sure some people are always poor and desperate enough to do the jobs it doesn't want to do.
This shows clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. It’s mostly because of US that India has great IT jobs. It’s also because of products and services made in the US that we use in India that India enjoys some prosperity. Think of all the pharmaceutical innovations. Think of the internet, iPhones and everything. The USA has a massive part in reducing poverty in India.
What you are doing is clear: moral grandstanding without suggesting any clear alternative. It’s always nice to show easy empathy.
5 replies →
>What would you have rather done if you were the poor mother in middle of nowhere India and you had 6 children with complete lack of material stability. You would have rejected it?
There's a major inconsistency here. You're consistently claiming that other people don't understand poverty, and yet you essentially made the point that you're not poor ("those people have lower IQ"). So either you started off poor and then worked your way up via some route that's obviously not this job, or you haven't experienced it either, or you are actually poor and aren't doing this work. Which is it?
>Can you address the point I made where farmers suicides happen because of material poverty?
You haven't provided any evidence. If you can prove the suicide rate is higher for these farmers, you may have a point, but even then, the suicide rate does not necessarily have any bearing on the overall rate of happiness. It's possible that a bigger majority are happier farming, but a small minority are pushed more inexorably towards suicide. Perhaps that isn't true either. We simply don't know without evidence.
That's my basic point. You're making strong claims, but you quite clearly simply do not know and are deciding based on instinct and perhaps a vague desire to have your favoured political candidates get more votes. You haven't provided any justification whatsoever. "I think it's right", "maybe they commit suicide" and "they don't vote for people I prefer" are not justifications, they're guesses. As much as you may want me to ("Who are you to suggest they are less happy than otherwise?"). I have made no claims whatsoever, simply pointed out the lack of nuance using hypotheticals.
Having more money is very good. Psychological damage is very bad. Your point is that psychological damage doesn't matter and having more food is all that matters. Okay, so should you send your child off to fight for a warlord if it means they have more food? Please try to grasp that's there's nuance.
>If you saw that my main point was that metaphysical concerns of “trauma” and “psychological issues” are a non issue for people who don’t have food on their plate.
I've put this at the end because its beside the main point, but this sentence is just a barrel of conceptual misunderstandings. Trauma is a type of psychological issue, so "trauma and psychological issues" makes no sense without a prepended "other". Neither trauma nor psychological issues are metaphysical concerns. Metaphysical concerns are issues of first principles and deeper understandings of concepts. It's a branch of philosophy. If you don't believe me, Google it, or ask ChatGPT.
>There's a major inconsistency here. You're consistently claiming that other people don't understand poverty, and yet you essentially made the point that you're not poor ("those people have lower IQ"). So either you started off poor and then worked your way up via some route that's obviously not this job, or you haven't experienced it either, or you are actually poor and aren't doing this work. Which is it?
Have you considered that I have more knowledge of poverty, not because I have experienced it, but because I have spent time understanding it?
> You haven't provided any evidence. If you can prove the suicide rate is higher for these farmers, you may have a point, but even then, the suicide rate does not necessarily have any bearing on the overall rate of happiness. It's possible that a bigger majority are happier farming, but a small minority are pushed more inexorably towards suicide. Perhaps that isn't true either. We simply don't know without evidence.
You didn't understand the point I was trying to make.
Lets make it clear here: people are either unhappy because of material poverty like lack of money/food or because of higher level needs like love, safety and in this case - not watching abusive videos (so ridiculous that I even have to compare this).
Do you genuinely want to challenge me in claiming that people are more unhappy by watching abusive videos than because of material poverty? Really?
>Having more money is very good. Psychological damage is very bad. Your point is that psychological damage doesn't matter and having more food is all that matters. Okay, so should you send your child off to fight for a warlord if it means they have more food? Please try to grasp that's there's nuance.
Yes I would? The actual equivalent here is that the child does not have other means of earning and would go hungry. And that fighting for the warlord is overall good for the society. In that case its obvious. Are you this naive to not understand that this is _exactly_ why you have an army in your country? Why do you think people become soldiers? You are so naive and stick to moral grandstanding that you have not even grasped why people work.
I have asked you the third (I think) time now. What would you rather do if you were in the woman's situation? You have conveniently ignored it.
Pray tell me, what is the best choice for the woman to make? I have made it clear that I would have done the same thing. I actually think there's a reason why you ignored this question. By answering it, you would clearly admit that
1. this is the best choice she can take
2. this job has to be done by someone anyway so its net benefit to society
3. this means the overall story is a net positive for everyone and your moral grandstanding has no place here
6 replies →
If I was in that position, and you gave me the choice to ritualistically mutilate myself for your amusement so my children could escape, I'd probably take it.
Your entire chain of argument is vacuous; devoid of any sense of empathy for your fellow humanity.
I show empathy which is why I’m happy that they have this job and can put food on their plate. You show fake empathy and fake concern by prioritising metaphysical needs.
4 replies →
He likely betrayed his real motivations a few comments back. He's annoyed about candidates getting elected by "low IQ" voters, and he wants them to get smarter by eating more so they can vote for the right people.
1 reply →