[HN Gopher] Are you nice or kind?
___________________________________________________________________
Are you nice or kind?
Author : mahathu
Score : 132 points
Date : 2022-04-04 19:42 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (haleynahman.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (haleynahman.substack.com)
| deeg wrote:
| I'd add one more differentiation. "Nice" doesn't require much
| effort but "kind" does. Being kind might require some sacrifice.
| Maybe it's voting against the zoning law that will increase your
| property value.
| civilized wrote:
| "Kindness" is one of those words that we've all recently agreed
| is an Absolute Anchor of Goodness. It's in everyone's mouth and
| on all the yard signs. But since no one agrees on what Goodness
| is, we don't agree on what Kindness is either. The "nice vs.
| kind" distinction is one of the ways we (indirectly) challenge
| that Absolute.
|
| We all agree that the bundle of traits associated with Kindness -
| being positive, agreeable, caring, and giving - are _basically_
| good, but the Devil 's always in the details.
|
| I think that what a lot of people call Kindness, I call Ruinous
| Empathy [1] or avoidance. This sort of "kindness" either fails to
| communicate challenging information, or it bends over backwards
| to sugarcoat it so much that the message gets lost... which
| amounts to the same thing.
|
| [1] https://www.radicalcandor.com/faq/what-is-ruinous-empathy/
| elevenoh wrote:
| Wokism at its essence is Nice > Kind.
|
| And nice is near-meaningless.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Quite the opposite: It's Good >> Nice/Kind. It's saying things
| that are very unpopular, pointing out realities that people are
| uncomfortable with, because it's good and necessary, regardless
| of the very un-nice, unkind responses you get. The idea is that
| we cannot fail to talk about and address these things anymore,
| just because some people are uncomfortable and it's challenging
| social norms to say them.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| > I think the same could be said for the commercialized version
| of anti-racism that's been embraced by brands both personal and
| corporate. The kind that emphasizes microaggressions and
| representation over social and economic emergencies. Politically
| speaking, niceness is good, but kindness is urgent. Clapping for
| essential workers is nice, paying them a liveable wage is urgent.
| Using the right pronouns is nice; ensuring rights, safety, and
| protection for trans people is urgent. "Nothing happens after the
| pronoun check-ins and the icebreakers," Green, who is Black and
| non-binary, wrote. "It's rare we make sure that people's
| immediate needs are addressed."
|
| _23 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you
| tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier
| matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you
| ought to have practised without neglecting the others. 24 You
| blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!
|
| 29 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build
| the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the
| righteous, 30 and you say, "If we had lived in the days of our
| ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the
| blood of the prophets." 31 Thus you testify against yourselves
| that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32
| Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors._
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| adamrezich wrote:
| my thoughts exactly.
|
| one of the biggest problems in contemporary times is
| politicians who pat themselves on the back (and encourage
| everyone who voted for them or who supports their party to also
| pat them and themselves on the back) for accomplishing
| something politically that Sounds Nice And Good On Paper but in
| reality doesn't change anything about anyone's situation. this
| problem long predated social media of course but it's pretty
| obvious that social media has only exacerbated things, because
| advocating for something that Sounds Nice And Good On Paper
| gets lots of user engagement (likes, retweets), which only goes
| to further the illusion that it's any sort of solution to any
| sort of problem.
|
| why spend lots and lots of money to actually attempt to fix
| institutional, structural, or otherwise endemic issues for any
| group of people, when hollow PR-friendly gestures get you
| reelected just as easily?
|
| in fact, it's even _better_ to do make hollow, PR-friendly,
| Sounds Nice And Good On Paper-type gestures than to actually do
| anything, because in the process of promoting such maneuvers,
| you get to convince everyone "on your side" that you're doing
| something Necessary, Right, and Just, but, more importantly,
| anyone who disagrees with the empty gesture or calls you out
| for making hollow PR-friendly gestures to begin with can be
| easily dismissed as some kind of -ist Political Adversary! then
| you get to posture yourself against them and their -ism which
| leads to further back-patting (or, if you prefer,
| circlejerking).
|
| it's hard to see a way out of this mess--where would one even
| _begin_ to try to change this metastructure that prevents the
| change of further structures by incentivizing ineffectual
| bullshit gestures over Actual, Measurable Change That Improves
| Peoples ' Lives?
| hprotagonist wrote:
| > it's hard to see a way out of this mess--where would one
| even begin to try to change this metastructure that prevents
| the change of further structures by incentivizing ineffectual
| bullshit gestures over Actual, Measurable Change That
| Improves Peoples' Lives?
|
| One person at a time, without making a big fuss about it,
| realizes that to be first you must be last, and gets the work
| done and learns to ignore the bullshit.
|
| It's not glamorous, it's likely to be ignored completely by
| the powers and the principalities, and it's one of the few
| things on this earth that keeps you human because it keeps
| you in relationship and community with other real life
| complicated people.
| omalleyt wrote:
| Nice is about mannerisms, kind is about actions.
| hahaxdxd123 wrote:
| Interesting that I can so easily argue the reverse in terms of
| her political alignments:
|
| Leftists: you should be able to have _xyz_. Oh, no, I don 't have
| a feasible plan to implement it but I'm definitely saying you
| should have it. (nice)
|
| Liberals: here's a massive reduction in child poverty through the
| expanded EITC (kind)
|
| I definitely agree with the geographical divide though, wherein
| the SF "progressives" are very nice and will put out the "BLM, No
| one is illegal, etc" sign in the garden but balk at being kind
| enough to actually build homes to allow those people to live near
| them.
|
| edit: thanks for the downvotes with no constructive criticism,
| very _kind_ of you!
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Right you have some of this strain of thought in the more
| extreme environmental class.
|
| Get rid of nuclear plants. Block new solar because it replaces
| some pretty land. Argue about view obstruction by wind power.
|
| Net effect is more natgas power.. and probably in the poorer
| neighborhoods they ostensibly care about with all their
| "climate inequality" activism, etc.
| monktastic1 wrote:
| I love that people are beginning to make this distinction. I
| wrote a take on it recently that I might as well share here.
| Trigger warning for people who don't like mystical language!
|
| https://hackmd.io/@monktastic/Its-all-you
| twayt wrote:
| Although kindness is seen as a virtue and niceness a sin in many
| arenas in life, in some business settings being superficially
| nice and ruthless is seen as a virtue. I wonder if there is more
| accessible content discussing how to deal with such people and
| situations
| [deleted]
| junon wrote:
| > Kindness is addressing the need, regardless of tone.
|
| I've yet to see this put as succinctly as this.
| sebastianconcpt wrote:
| TL;DR: _Not everyone will see leftist politics this way, but I've
| found it grounding and humbling. It's also easier to track
| progress_
| silvestrov wrote:
| I've heard the variation:
|
| In LA they say "good morning" and mean "fuck you".
|
| In NY they say "fuck you" and mean "good morning".
| ericbarrett wrote:
| I've lived in both cities. The LA bit is true. In New York,
| "fuck you" means "fuck you" and they don't bother with "good
| morning."
| willcipriano wrote:
| In Philly someone can call you an asshole (usually worse) and
| it it can put a smile on your face. Brotherly love man, it's
| one of the few places I feel like I can be myself.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| trackofalljades wrote:
| While the word choice feels awkward, what the author is trying to
| say about generalized east coast culture versus generalized west
| coast culture is SPOT ON. I've lived in five states, on an
| island, and outside the USA as well, and I would absolutely use
| these kinds of examples to differentiate NYC from LA, or Philly
| from Seattle, etc. Most of the mid-west and southern Ontario fall
| into this "east coast" cultural norm as well (even more extremely
| on the kindness side).
| bee_rider wrote:
| I slightly object to the idea that the East Coast brusqueness
| should be interpreted as less "nice." If we're mapping
| "kindness" to "actually solving real problems" and "niceness"
| to "being polite about things" -- politeness is a cultural
| idea.
|
| Like if I'm at the grocery store and I strike up a long "polite
| conversation" with the cashier, I'm actually kind of being a
| dick to everybody behind me in line, by slowing things down.
| And it seems rude to me, that I should impose upon the cashier
| to make them pretend to be my friend. They are working and I'll
| respect that by letting them focus on their job.
|
| Speeding things up for the people behind me and keeping the
| professional boundaries in place aren't some sort of deep
| difference in the problem-solving philosophy. This is just
| basically a different way of looking at politeness that
| emphasizes getting out of the way.
| alar44 wrote:
| This is exactly one of the things I absolutely hate about the
| Midwest. I want to get my groceries, or beer, or gas, and get
| the fuck out. But everyone feels the need to have a goddamn
| conversation in the checkout line. Get your shit and move on.
| [deleted]
| palijer wrote:
| I live in Toronto and can confirm. People will say Torontonians
| are mean and aren't as friendly as the rest of Ontario/Canada,
| but when it snows you'll be hard pressed to find any able-
| bodied person not helping out random stuck cars they pass while
| walking. Much like the article says, you'll basically just get
| a wave or a shake of the head after the deed is done.
|
| Plus I can't count the times I've seen folks looking confused
| at a transit stop and someone asks them if they need help
| before I get to them. Of course, the local will act annoyed the
| entire time while helping.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| After a major snowstorm (not in Toronto), I encountered an
| elderly person trying to dig out their car. I took their
| shovel, with little interaction as is described, and dug them
| out. It was some work. I also shoveled the curb to the
| sidewalk and around to the driver side, so they wouldn't
| slip.
|
| I handed the shovel back, and started leaving and noticed
| that they were headed into their home, not to their car. I
| inquired, and they weren't going anywhere. Maybe a bit more
| interaction beforehand would have helped.
| crooked-v wrote:
| I'm reminded of the musical Into the Woods, which makes this kind
| of distinction one of its central themes, as particularly
| embodied by the witch ("I'm not nice, I'm not good, I'm just
| right"). One of the songs is focused on her confrontation with
| the musical's set of other fairy-tale characters about how they
| care more about being "nice" (that is, saving face and not
| feeling morally culpable about anything) than about either being
| "good" (taking morally correct actions and accepting personal
| suffering in the process) or being "right" (fixing the kingdom's
| major ongoing crisis, whatever the cost).
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > "right" (fixing the kingdom's major ongoing crisis, whatever
| the cost)
|
| How is that right, if you ignore the costs (such as evil)? What
| the heck does "right" mean?
| dang wrote:
| https://microblogrf.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/the-difference-...
| emerged wrote:
| In addition to the Nice vs Kind distinction, there is the sort
| which is "Nice" or "Kind" to one person/people with the tactic of
| explicitly being "Mean" or "Evil" to someone else.
|
| Most of popular identity politics is either "Nice and Mean" (X
| identity is great, Y people are bad) or "Kind and Evil" (there's
| institutionalized whatever, so let's help X by punishing Y).
|
| Meanwhile the actual good people in the world are Kind and Kind
| to everyone.
| monktastic1 wrote:
| Indeed. I would go so far as to say that it's _only_ true
| kindness when it 's kind to everyone. (I wrote a top-level
| comment here with a link to a piece I recently wrote about
| this.)
| moate wrote:
| So following the original Author's Nice (optics over results)
| vs Kind (results over optics) IDK how Mean (optics over
| results) vs Evil (results over optics) actually works.
|
| I don't believe many (any?) people think they're doing Evil
| with the goal of harming others as the ends. It seems most
| likely that people think they're doing something for a greater
| good, but that requires sacrifices (e.g. "Yes, we have to
| murder/imprison all the Jews/Asians/Gays/Whatever, but that's
| because they're ruining our country").
|
| And I don't know how many people are trying to be be Mean but
| not doing a small Evil. What does a Mean act that doesn't harm
| the other person look like?
|
| Also as someone who regularly engages in identity politics, I
| think your last point is just a "No True Scotsman" but also
| sort of proves my earlier point: being kind is doing good
| without regard for the optics, and everyone thinks that's what
| they are in their head.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| >I don't believe many (any?) people think they're doing Evil
| with the goal of harming others as the ends. It seems most
| likely that people think they're doing something for a
| greater good, but that requires sacrifices (e.g. "Yes, we
| have to murder/imprison all the Jews/Asians/Gays/Whatever,
| but that's because they're ruining our country").
|
| For real? Revenge, grudges and spite are common as all heck.
| Think divorce disputes, passive aggression, abusive
| relationships, bureaucracy. I've seen it more than once in
| business relationships too.
| moate wrote:
| Just about everything you described (aside from
| "bureaucracy" which is a net neutral) could be considered
| Punishment, or punitive behavior. They're not doing Evil
| with the _goal_ being harm, but some version of "this will
| fix things/this will get them to stop being bad".
|
| You killed my dog, I'm going to murder everyone in your
| criminal empire. You're leaving me, so I'm taking the
| house. You're bad, so I'll be bad.
|
| There are very few people who feel they're morally evil
| (and ironically, those who do are rarely as bad as they
| think). I think people do bad things, and typically they do
| it because they feel they have to be the one to do this bad
| thing in service of a greater goal that they view as good.
| codetrotter wrote:
| > What does a Mean act that doesn't harm the other person
| look like?
|
| Cutting in line, is one example that comes to mind. Certainly
| a mean thing to do, and a dick move, but not really harmful
| in the grand scheme of things.
| moate wrote:
| So the stakes are low, but it's objectively harmful. If you
| cut in line, it takes longer for me to get through the line
| than if you weren't there. Compare this to the "Nice" act
| of throwing out "thoughts and prayers" when someone says
| their house burned down.
|
| I guess a better example is screaming "fuck you" when does
| something you don't agree with? If "Nice" is expressing a
| desire to help without helping, being "Mean" is expressing
| a desire without hurting?
|
| I'd need to pull some research, but I'm pretty sure that
| the mental gains of "thoughts and prayers" is degrees lower
| than the mental pains of "fuck you", so I felt like they
| weren't proper equivalents.
| rzzzt wrote:
| Maybe D&D alignments would be of help here? Kind and Kind
| sounds like Lawful Good.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| This is wonderfully articulate and motivates me at least to aim
| for a more stoic approach to life. Makes me wonder what I can do
| to help the world as mostly I don't do much at all for wider
| society. At least I don't tweet nice stuff to compensate!
|
| Also as an introvert, helping with a pram on a subway without
| small talk sounds pretty cool. Shame I don't live in NYC or
| similar!
| [deleted]
| madrox wrote:
| Applying this to engineering orgs, one of my hiring principles
| has been "hire kind people." My thought was that you can teach
| people lots of things, but you can't teach people to be kind. I'm
| probably wrong on that, but it's seemed true in the context of
| building teams. You can more easily teach niceness than kindness,
| anyway.
|
| The older I get, the more niceness drives me nuts when not also
| backed with kindness. If I have to choose who I'd rather work
| with, I'd rather work with kind people who aren't nice. They're
| not always easy to work with, but I can count on them to work
| with people instead of complain about them behind their back.
|
| This is, of course, not a dichotomy. There are plenty of people
| who lack both qualities. Those brilliant jerks I am totally fine
| never hiring again.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Pure Kant. Life affirming wherever you see it. People doing
| something right because it's the right thing to do.
|
| Never in anticipation of reward or even acknowledgement.
|
| Never because someone might see you (virtue signalling)
|
| Nor because it makes you feel good inside. (vanity)
|
| Not even if God had commanded you. (must come from free will)
| beaconstudios wrote:
| Kant's categorical imperative is a circlular argument from
| religion - bad things are bad because they're bad, good things
| are good because they're good. He advocated for telling a
| murderer where their intended victim is, because lying is
| categorically wrong [1]. Deontology can only be justified by
| religion; utilitarianism (ethics come from the outcome) is the
| better option.
|
| Also Kant positioning himself as a moral philosopher is pretty
| ironic because he was insanely racist.
|
| 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
|
| > One of the first major challenges to Kant's reasoning came
| from the French philosopher Benjamin Constant, who asserted
| that since truth telling must be universal, according to Kant's
| theories, one must (if asked) tell a known murderer the
| location of his prey. This challenge occurred while Kant was
| still alive, and his response was the essay On a Supposed Right
| to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives (sometimes translated On a
| Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns). In
| this reply, Kant agreed with Constant's inference, that from
| Kant's own premises one must infer a moral duty not to lie to a
| murderer.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| > utilitarianism (ethics come from the outcome) is the better
| option
|
| Utilitarianism is just as subject to countering every
| argument for it with "yeah, but why?"
|
| It boils down to the is-ought problem. If you remove the
| objective will of god, what is left is the subjective will of
| individual human beings. I struggle to see how utilitarianism
| would follow from the latter.
|
| > Also Kant positioning himself as a moral philosopher is
| pretty ironic because he was insanely racist.
|
| What in the world does that have to do with being a moral
| philosopher?
| beaconstudios wrote:
| > Utilitarianism is just as subject to countering every
| argument for it with "yeah, but why?"
|
| I'm not sure what you mean by this, sorry.
|
| > It boils down to the is-ought problem. If you remove the
| objective will of god, what is left is the subjective will
| of individual human beings. I struggle to see how
| utilitarianism would follow from the latter.
|
| Well, utilitarianism would suggest that good derives from
| pleasure and bad derives from suffering. Thus, a good
| action is one that increases pleasure or reduces suffering.
| Pleasure and suffering are subjective, so the idea is that
| the ideal is to fulfil people's preferences. The will of
| god, on the other hand, is not objective either - different
| religions have different interpretations, many religions
| don't have a will of god, and atheists don't believe any of
| them anyway.
|
| > What in the world does that have to do with being a moral
| philosopher?
|
| Racism is broadly considered immoral. I just find it a
| funny irony, not a critical takedown of Kant's moral
| philosophy.
| [deleted]
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > utilitarianism (ethics come from the outcome) is the better
| option.
|
| Glad you cleared that up. Some philosopher types had been
| struggling with it for a few centuries.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| Not a problem, I'm here all night. Hit me up if you need
| the ontological question of substance answering too: it's
| materialism.
|
| For real though, what are you supposed to do with a moral
| system that requires you to adhere to rules regardless of
| outcome? Where the founder literally said you should aid a
| murderer because lying is wrong? That's so stupid. You can
| only derive such a system from religious belief where the
| rules are a manifestation of a higher power, as Kant did.
| deanCommie wrote:
| A challenge I have with this framing is it suggests a binary when
| none is necessary.
|
| The premise is New Yorkers are Kind but not Nice, and that's
| good. Well, in the context of helping a woman with a stroller vs
| not, obviously helping is better, even if you don't say thanks or
| say anything nice at the same time. But also, why not both? It's
| not like you can't help with the stroller, AND shout a friendly
| "Have a nice day" as you leave. It costs nothing extra. It's okay
| that New Yorkers are NOT like that - it's totally fine. The job
| got done. But it's not binary.
|
| So the implication is that the alternative is to say "Wow it
| looks like you are really struggling with that stroller, that
| must be so tough", and to offer no help in response. But, I don't
| think this person exists. Maybe it's true that people on the West
| coast won't help with the stroller, but they're NOT going to stop
| and empathize and do something nice while they do it. The people
| not helping on the subway on the West coast are NEITHER Nice nor
| Kind, maybe because of geography, maybe because the individualism
| of car-orientated culture makes people forget they live in a
| community the way people in New York are incapable of forgetting.
|
| I propose that that "Nice but not Kind" caricature is actually
| incredibly rare to the point of non-existence. It tends to be
| used by the right to describe the entire left - as virtue
| signaling, caring-about-optics, overly politically-correct,
| social justice warriors. But the people who are using these
| characterizations are not themselves fighting for meaningful
| change. They're using this exclusively to criticize caring or
| small incremental progress forward.
|
| Yes, legal protection for trans people is more important than
| using correct pronouns. But who out there is preaching proper
| pronoun usage WITHOUT supporting legislation for protection of
| trans people? Tell me which politicians support these
| protections, and I'll vote for them, but day-to-day I cant change
| the law. I CAN change what pronouns I use with my friends and
| strangers. So do I spend most of my time being "nice but not
| kind" because I only vote one day out of 365 for politicians that
| do Kind acts?
|
| Even the "liberal vs leftist" comparison is a bit strange because
| it's entirely US-centric and is part of the way that Americans
| fool themselves that the Democratic party is in any way
| progressive. They are centrist by any political spectrum
| definition, and as such share some of the same "conservative"
| attitudes to certain types of social progress as their Republican
| counterparts.
|
| So yes, Be kind. If you can only be one, Be kind. But 99% of
| situations it costs nothing extra to Kind AND Nice. And The
| situations where one can ONLY be Nice but not Kind are few and
| far between, and tend to be exaggerated.
| jfengel wrote:
| _They are centrist by any political spectrum definition_
|
| Well, exactly. The right wing has been very successful by
| ceding the center. The extreme right is enthusiastic and turns
| out to vote, and the center-right is willing to vote with them.
|
| Perhaps the far left would turn out enthusiastically for a far-
| left candidate, but the Democrats believe that it wouldn't be
| enough to balance the loss of centrists. The result is a party
| that attempts to appeal to the center, while retaining a slight
| left-wing balance. There is little place for a genuinely
| progressive stance.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > But who out there is preaching proper pronoun usage WITHOUT
| supporting legislation for protection of trans people?
|
| This is maybe not the best example. But certainly there are a
| lot of groups who have a veneer of helpfulness, but whose
| actions are self-serving. Their words say one thing, but their
| actions another.
|
| Then there's groups who mean well, but whose actions are
| ineffective. I.e. enacting these laws they hope will reduce
| homelessness, but do nothing to actually address homelessness
| (because they don't understand the issue).
| steveBK123 wrote:
| An example here would be the people who protest the breakdown
| of homeless shantytowns (from which bussing to shelters is
| provided) but also protest any new shelter being built in
| their zip code.
|
| Or protest about educational inequality & segregation being
| so unfair, but vote for low taxes while making sure their kid
| gets into the better gifted&talented school which also has a
| huge PTA budget as all the rich locals get zoned into it and
| can increase the per-student budget for THEIR kids through
| direct contributes..
| deanCommie wrote:
| Oh those are GREAT examples, you're right.
|
| There are so many people who would march in support of
| homeless and poor, but vote against any legislation to
| build more low-income housing that would actually help
| them, because it would also decrease their own houseprices
| or raise their taxes ever so slightly.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| There's also well meaning but poorly thought out activist
| maximalism.
|
| Like blocking new construction of a building on say a
| former McDonalds site that will be 30% low-income
| housing. The activists demand it be 50%.. 80%.. 100% or
| don't build. So sure that would be more low income
| housing, but it may be above the threshold where its
| profitable for a developer to take on the project. The
| delays/fights also may deter developers in that
| neighborhood generally.
|
| Meanwhile - how much low-income housing did the former
| McDonalds provide?
| anamax wrote:
| > I propose that that "Nice but not Kind" caricature is
| actually incredibly rare to the point of non-existence. It
| tends to be used by the right to describe the entire left - as
| virtue signaling, caring-about-optics, overly politically-
| correct, social justice warriors.
|
| Does anyone think that "virtue-signaling, caring-about-optics,
| overly politically correct, social justice warriers" are being
| nice? Heck - do they think that they're being nice?
|
| > They're using this exclusively to criticize caring or small
| incremental progress forward.
|
| You're assuming that everyone views that as "caring" and
| "progress forward."
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| >I propose that that "Nice but not Kind" caricature is actually
| incredibly rare to the point of non-existence.
|
| I recognised it immediately as a Melbournian who has had
| colleagues from Queensland.
|
| Over there, when a friend needs help they'll help them. Over
| here, when a friend needs help we'll take them out to brunch
| and "be there for them if you need us".
|
| >It tends to be used by the right to describe the entire left -
| as virtue signaling, caring-about-optics, overly politically-
| correct, social justice warriors. But the people who are using
| these characterizations are not themselves fighting for
| meaningful change. They're using this exclusively to criticize
| caring or small incremental progress forward.
|
| I lean somewhat conservative and can assure you that this take
| is plain wrong. Most of the reaction to political correctness
| is a reaction to the isolation/injustice that some people's
| feelings matter, and others (straight white males) don't - that
| some people's success should be celebrated, and others (again,
| straight white males) booed.
| deanCommie wrote:
| > Over there, when a friend needs help they'll help them.
| Over here, when a friend needs help we'll take them out to
| brunch and "be there for them if you need us".
|
| Can you offer some examples of help that is being offered in
| favour of taking them out to brunch and "being there"?
|
| > I lean somewhat conservative and can assure you that this
| take is plain wrong. Most of the reaction to political
| correctness is a reaction to the isolation/injustice that
| some people's feelings matter, and others (straight white
| males) don't - that some people's success should be
| celebrated, and others (again, straight white males) booed.
|
| I think we're talking about different things.
|
| My hypothetical example is a situation where person A
| corrects person B's language and suggests that their phrasing
| is racist, or sexist, or etc. And Person B lashes back by
| saying Person A doesn't REALLY care about the race/gender
| involved, but is only virtue signalling or focusing on
| political correctness. It's a derailing tactic, because the
| scenario isn't where Person B is doing something else
| meaningful but Kind (while Not Being Nice). And the
| implication is that Person A ONLY cares about being Nice, and
| wouldn't be Kind in a different circumstance.
|
| What you're describing is an independent concern where we as
| a culture today over-highlight the successes/feelings of
| marginalized groups, at the expense of the historical
| dominant majority. I think those scenarios do exist, but I
| also think we are in a transitionary period where we over-
| index on ensuring the historically marginalized are over-
| represented, and already the next generation will find a
| better balance (Gen Z doesn't care as much about race,
| gender, sexuality in the same way that previous generations
| either overtly tried to represss those that are different, or
| OVER-praise those that are different. Gen Z, anecdotally,
| seems pretty chill and even-keeled about it al)
| anamax wrote:
| > My hypothetical example is a situation where person A
| corrects person B's language and suggests that their
| phrasing is racist, or sexist, or etc.
|
| Or the very real case where person B's language and intent
| is not any of those things and person A "gets in their
| face" or is vehement. ("Suggest" my ass. This "correction"
| always comes with a heavy dose of entitlement and
| hostility.)
|
| > Gen Z doesn't care as much about race, gender, sexuality
|
| See what "I don't care what color you are" will get you....
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| > I propose that that "Nice but not Kind" caricature is
| actually incredibly rare to the point of non-existence.
|
| Is this not exactly what hash-tag warriors are? 'Let me tweet
| about a plight within my echo chamber' but will not _do_
| anything. All talk, no action.
| deanCommie wrote:
| My point is that these situations don't give the opportunity
| to ALSO be Kind.
|
| Yes, it's better if you donate your time/money to a
| worthwhile cause than just tweet about. It's better if you
| vote for a politician that fixes the issue.
|
| But in the moment, facing the opportunity to spread awareness
| about a plight, isn't sharing awareness better than not? In
| that circumstance, that person is being "ONLY Nice, not
| kind", but there is no indication that the same person isn't
| also being kind.
|
| On Twitter, I do plenty of tweeting about a plight from
| within my echo chamber. But I also donate thousands of
| dollars to worthwhile charities in the same fight. I don't
| tweet about that, because ironically, that WOULD be
| purposeless virtue signaling, without any benefit except my
| ego. But spreading awareness about a plight I think is
| important might inspire someone else to do the same
| contribution I make.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| NY here.
|
| It doesn't have to be a binary, but it often is. I think it's
| just the way human brains are wired. Things don't have to be
| logical or make sense to be the way they are.
|
| Some of my loudest most activist
| friends/coworkers/neighbors/acquaintances are actually not
| really that kind at a personal level, especially to strangers.
| They can be very showy about the issues they support or make
| dramatic gift giving gestures for small occasions. They also
| act like building staff & delivery men are non-humans who don't
| exist.
|
| It's a weird dichotomy, but its real, not some invention of the
| author. I think theres a dimension of more activist class being
| in a political socioeconomic bubble. There's something to be
| said of the grounding effects of working a 9-5 job and
| interacting with lots of flavors of people.
|
| It's a similar dynamic to the growth vs scarcity mindset.
|
| Some people are really good at making more money. Some people
| are really good at pinching every penny. It is a very rare
| creature to actually be great at both. Almost everyone I know,
| myself included, I can box into A or B pretty easily. There's
| no reason you can't be both and if you were it would be a super
| power.. but very few are!
| throwawaygh wrote:
| _> Some people are really good at making more money. Some
| people are really good at pinching every penny. It is a very
| rare creature to actually be great at both. Almost everyone I
| know, myself included, I can box into A or B pretty easily.
| There 's no reason you can't be both and if you were it would
| be a super power.. but very few are!_
|
| There is a reason: time. Making a lot of money usually means
| either long days (exhausting) or high-intensity days (also
| exhausting). Pinching pennies is quite easy when your strict
| 9-5 work day is mostly filled with low stress tasks. But when
| you're exhausted at the end of the day (or simply do not have
| time), it's much more difficult to turn down opportunities to
| trade time for money.
|
| In the extreme, I'm reminded of a friend who lives on $25K/yr
| or so of passive income. He scoffs at things like dishwashing
| machines and thinks people should treat housework like a form
| of meditation. Dirty dishes are in all earnestness a relief
| from his unrelenting boredom, while for me they are one more
| thing standing in the way of getting 8 hours of sleep :)
|
| (My favorite example of this is the "stretched thin on
| 500K/yr" meme. Some of the examples are extravagant and silly
| (nice cars, lots of vacations) but others actually make
| perfect sense if you assume both earners are in high-
| stress+long-hour careers (childcare, newer cars, more
| expensive vacations). If both parents are working 70 hour
| weeks then it makes sense that you're going to end up
| spending a _ton_ on activities for your kids, over-paying to
| make the most of the little time you get together, and paying
| a premium to avoid time-consuming issues like a car breaking
| down.)
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Time is a factor but not completely. It still seems to be a
| subconscious decision, and maybe something to do with your
| childhood upbringing.
|
| I see people in the same companies on the same teams who
| fit into A or B despite doing ostensibly the same job.
|
| Now time is finite, and arguably personA decided to send
| time on income maximization which takes away from time they
| can spend on penny pinching. While personB has done the
| inverse. Arguably you could split your time 50/50 or 70/30,
| but I've seen almost no one do it.
| throwawaygh wrote:
| It's also possible that the extremes are actually the two
| global optima. But I agree that personal temperament and
| perhaps upbringing has a lot to do with it.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| I think the distinction between niceness and kindness is very
| accurate, but applied to liberals vs leftists I think is a
| stretch.
| reggieband wrote:
| > Stand at a flight of stairs in the NYC subway with a stroller.
| Someone will grab the other end, help you carry the stroller, and
| then walk away without saying a word.
|
| This is one of my enduring memories of NYC as I saw this
| precisely play out first hand. A tiny woman with a massive
| stroller arrived at the base of the stairs and the guy walking in
| front of her glanced back then gave the slightest nod before
| reaching down and grabbing the front axle. She overhead pressed
| the stroller handles, they climbed a couple of flights and at the
| top of the stairs he put his end down. Not a word exchanged, not
| even a thanks, they just went their separate ways. It was so
| smooth, almost choreographed, I don't believe the woman even
| broke stride.
| nickvanw wrote:
| I have been on the other end of this somewhat often, as one
| does when they take the subway to/from work every day.
|
| Some of this is very self-serving for the median commuter as
| well. Someone struggling with a stroller or luggage is likely
| blocking some portion of the way for people getting in and out
| of the Subway, and the easiest way to fix that is just to help
| the person.
|
| I've carried a number of strollers, suitcases and whatnot for
| people without barely a word. The same is true for helping
| people get their cars out of the snow, giving directions or
| anything else.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Yes this is part of it for sure - help me help you, we're all
| trying to just go about our day here.. let me lend a hand.
|
| Plus you've probably got your headphones on and are running
| late to your morning meeting or meeting up with your spouse..
| and the extra minute of putting down the stroller, freeing
| your hand to remove your headphones and adding some
| superfluous verbal interaction just feels... superfluous.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| >Some of this is very self-serving for the median commuter as
| well. Someone struggling with a stroller or luggage is likely
| blocking some portion of the way for people getting in and
| out of the Subway,
|
| From an evolutionary game theory perspective, all seemingly
| selfless coordination acts are really self interest with
| extra steps. Prairie dogs have a vocabulary of about 10 words
| for the approximately 10 types of predators they might want
| to warn each other about. Why would a male prairie dog
| participate in a system which perpetuates the life of
| competing males? Because all participant prairie dogs benefit
| from not getting eaten, and the marginal benefit to the
| individual is higher than the marginal cost.
|
| Of course, prairie dogs don't sit around working out payoff
| matrices and finding the Nash Equilibrium*. The behaviour is
| hard coded without an understanding of why. Warning their
| fellow dogs just "feels like the right thing to do". so they
| do it.
| prmph wrote:
| Wow, something very similar happened to me when I first came to
| America to study from Ghana and landed in NYC. Struggling with
| my luggage up a flight of stairs from the subway station, a
| young lady grabbed the other end of my heaviest bag, helped me
| up with it, and left without saying a word.
|
| Cool to hear this is not uncommon. This incident is indeed also
| one of my most enduring memories of NYC.
| MetallicCloud wrote:
| We had a similar experience when living in NY with two small
| children. People would always offer to help, but one time in
| particular a woman grabbed the front of the stroller and
| started helping me down the subway stairs, then she looked back
| and said "Could you please go faster, I'm running late". She
| was in no obligation to help us in the first place. We got to
| the bottom and she ran off to a train.
|
| I found New Yorkers are always happy to lend a hand when
| needed.
| tonystubblebine wrote:
| This is a fantastic variation on this story.
| klodolph wrote:
| It's not just strollers. For example, if you are transporting a
| massive, steel I-beam on the NYC subway, people will lend a
| hand.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiQZaGNX108
| technothrasher wrote:
| When I was in Amsterdam a couple years back, walking up a hilly
| street, I saw a lady with a stroller hanging out with her
| friends and chatting away while the stroller with baby inside
| started to roll down the hill towards me. I grabbed the
| stroller and rolled it back up to her about six feet or so. She
| looked at me, looked at the stroller, then laughed briefly and
| went back to talking to her friends. I just kept walking and
| thought, "that was one of the strangest short interactions I've
| ever had with somebody." I put it down to something culturally
| Dutch that I didn't understand.
| amenghra wrote:
| Nervous laugh perhaps? Or you crashed a movie set? You'll
| never know.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| "Why can't we get a good shot of a stroller rolling
| dangerously down the street?!"
| vinni2 wrote:
| " walking up a hilly street" in Amsterdam how funny
| technothrasher wrote:
| Ok, so it wasn't Lombard Street... Relatively hilly? Is
| that better?
| cxr wrote:
| > kindness may be 'Ugh, you've said that five times, here's a
| sweater!'
|
| The turn of phrase I've used in my internal monologue is "harshly
| compassionate". The example given frames this in terms of
| assistance, but it goes beyond that. Pearl Jam's song Given To
| Fly really exemplifies this sort of thing. In the middle of
| mythologizing and uplifting messaging of love, the word "fuckers"
| gets dropped in.
|
| Similar but not the same: Brooke Allen's contrast of "good"
| people versus "nice" people
| <https://brookeallen.com/2015/01/14/how-to-hire-good-people-i...>
| WalterBright wrote:
| virtue: volunteering at a soup kitchen
|
| virtue signalling: inviting the press to photograph you
| volunteering at a soup kitchen
|
| virtue: donating anonymously to your favorite cause
|
| virtue signalling: demanding the government fund your favorite
| cause
| orwin wrote:
| > virtue: donating anonymously to your favorite cause
|
| > virtue signalling: demanding the government fund your
| favorite cause
|
| I thought that as we built and testes political systems, we
| decided that collegial decisions on fund attribution and nation
| goal were the best way of doing thing. I actually think
| lobbying and militant advocacy are the correct way of acting
| and spending money. If you aren't able to convince people,
| maybe your idea is not as good as you thought.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I fail to see the virtue in forcibly spending someone else's
| money on your favorite cause, even if it is a good cause.
|
| A litmus test as to whether you _really_ believe it is a good
| cause is if you 're willing to spend your _own_ money on it.
| And not a token amount, either. Real money.
| lamontcg wrote:
| I could send my whole life savings / net worth off to some
| organization that is addressing climate change and it won't
| make a drop in the bucket and nothing will change.
| WalterBright wrote:
| If all the people that voted for it did, then it would
| make quite a big difference.
|
| After all, where does the government money come from?
| LesZedCB wrote:
| except that money isn't distributed democratically.......
|
| maybe if the government gave everybody a 'democracy fund' of
| $1000 to be distributed to whatever registered
| recipients/distributions. no more, no less spending on
| lobbying.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > virtue signalling: demanding the government fund your
| favorite cause
|
| yeah, not really.
|
| if the cause is something massive like global warning, it isn't
| happening due to the actions of individuals one by one, and its
| bigger than any charity.
|
| and making it an individual moral problem isn't helpful because
| it always devolves eventually into the "so you criticize
| society, yet you participate in it, curious" problem.
|
| the government is supposed to be there for the big problems, to
| get the government to move you have to do PR of one form or
| another.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Perhaps true, but that has no bearing on whether you're being
| _virtuous_ or not.
|
| For example, if you bike to work, you're being virtuous. If
| you drive your musclecar to work, you're not. How you vote
| has nothing to do with virtuosity.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-04 23:00 UTC)