I swear to fucking god that it’s not even that; it’s people that care for others, and people that are willfully ignorant that it’s actually pragmatically cheaper and more efficient to care for others than to treat them like shit.
Pandemic as an example : the more you stay indoors and try to stop the spread of the virus, the faster the pandemic ends and the faster YOU can get back to normal. FORGET that it also stops people dying and protects the vulnerable, it’s in YOUR SELFISH INTEREST.
Or having a basic system of social welfare : giving bread to a poor person costs the price of the bread. Having to imprison them, pay for cops, repair of broken things, investigations etc costs more fucking money. even if you hate people and want them to die, it’s fucking CHEAPER FOR YOU.
I always think of this scene from A Beautiful Mind when I think about people who can’t comprehend that being selfish can be more effective if you accommodate the needs of others:
Unfortunately, the scene hinges on the objectification of women. I’ve been searching for a less problematic example. But, I do kinda think this example might be effective with male selfish asshole.
I have never been able to find it but long ago I read an article in a magazine from AAA insurance about how driving should be a dance. I remember it being along the same line of thinking, but I’m not sure.
People follow their emotions. It feels bad for a poor person to get a “handout”, and it feels good for a “bad” for a bad person to be punished. That’s pretty much it. Multiply it by “my in-group is good and my outgroup is bad”, and you get conservatism.
Notice that it’s a stupid world view. It’s at the level of toddlers.
If we want to change how these people act, we need to reach them on their level. Facts won’t do it. They’re not listening to facts. You need to make them feel good when they do the right thing.
It does feel like being held hostage by a cranky toddler, yes. We have to pander and beg and appease them because they’re too selfish and stupid to realize it would be better for everyone, including them, if they just cooperated.
It feels bad for a poor person to get food is only true under a capitalist brainrot worldview. Throughout most of human history it felt good to help the poor.
I’ll keep it real with you, I ain’t pandering to these people. You can do that without me. I wish you the best of luck with that. I’d hate myself too much for it. Guess it takes a better person.
there is a spectrum of how much comfort are you willing to give up to help others (including your future self). some people are against to give up even slight comforts in order to make things better (like, people visceral reactions to some “meatless mondays” proposals. or people being unwilling to reduce on-street parking even when by any meaningful metric it improves the quality of life for everyone)
Others are willing to give much more, but most people still have limits (for example, being willing to die for a cause is much rarer than people who are willing to go to a peaceful protest)
Others are willing to give much more, but most people still have limits (for example, being willing to die for a cause is much rarer than people who are willing to go to a peaceful protest)
right, but I’m saying this in the context of things that are literally more beneficial. Dying is not literally more beneficial.
Like it costs $3 to give someone a loaf of bread. It costs $10k or something to shove them in jail for theft.
To them it’s “unfair” that “I have to work and buy my own food, while you take my hard earned money and give it to someone who doesn’t work!” (Not my mentality, just providing their argument)
They don’t care about the cost to imprison because “they broke the law. If I break the law I go to jail.” at that point cost doesn’t matter to them.
I know that you’re explaining the argument and not actually endorsing it, so this isn’t directed at you:
You know that they just get given food at jail, right? And it’s still your money paying for that. And now those people are literally restricted from participating in society. If we fed them without jailing them, they could hold a job and spend money and provide to their community; instead we are paying for a punishment hotel to house and feed them in isolation. So if you subtract the cost of food from both sides since we’re feeding them either way, you just want to pay a lot of money to make them miserable, and also waive any benefit that society could recoup from having them be fed.
you just want to pay a lot of money to make them miserable, and also waive any benefit that society could recoup from having them be fed.
Pretty much what they want, but some are even worse. There is a phrase “3 hots and a cot” to mean 3 meals and a place to sleep. People like my uncle say it with disgust, as if they shouldn’t be fed, that they’re somehow on an enviable vacation being in prison… They’re so gross…
Yep, familiar with that phrase. I’ve also heard stories of people “robbing” banks for a dollar just so they could get put in jail for that bare minimum of food and shelter (and idk if it’s true but the unhesitating believability of it alone is a damning indictment). So really, by withholding food and shelter from free people, we’re incentivizing criminal activity.
Do these law & order, fiscal conservative republicans want to lower the crime rate and reduce spending or not?
For a lot of people, they feel better being able to put “those people in their place.” Sure it costs them more to throw these people in jail, but then they get to feel superior. This is Donald Trump’s main policy – you, a mediocre white man, can now look down on other people, which makes you feel better about yourself.
Ur pandemic example is flawed. Its absolutely quicker to just let everyone go about their lives as usual. The only people at risk of death where the elderly or those with comorbidities. Letting 1-1.5% of the population die would be far quicker and due to the demographics effected would have actually been good for the economy not counting the economic wins of not shutting everything down for ages.
I swear to fucking god that it’s not even that; it’s people that care for others, and people that are willfully ignorant that it’s actually pragmatically cheaper and more efficient to care for others than to treat them like shit.
Pandemic as an example : the more you stay indoors and try to stop the spread of the virus, the faster the pandemic ends and the faster YOU can get back to normal. FORGET that it also stops people dying and protects the vulnerable, it’s in YOUR SELFISH INTEREST.
Or having a basic system of social welfare : giving bread to a poor person costs the price of the bread. Having to imprison them, pay for cops, repair of broken things, investigations etc costs more fucking money. even if you hate people and want them to die, it’s fucking CHEAPER FOR YOU.
But I wanted to go to the salon and then to applebees😡
The Tragedy of the Commons is very tragic and very common.
JustRight.jpg, chef’s kiss.
Yoink!
100% I’ve been saying this for such a long time. I believe the saying is “cutting of your nose to spite your face” or something.
Yep, that’s the correct phrase.
“I’m gonna teach my face a goddamned lesson!”
“How’re you going to do that?”
(pulls out hacksaw)
“holyshitwtflolandimout”
“This nose has had it too good for too long! Enough is enough!”
I always think of this scene from A Beautiful Mind when I think about people who can’t comprehend that being selfish can be more effective if you accommodate the needs of others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJS7Igvk6ZM
Unfortunately, the scene hinges on the objectification of women. I’ve been searching for a less problematic example. But, I do kinda think this example might be effective with male selfish asshole.
I have never been able to find it but long ago I read an article in a magazine from AAA insurance about how driving should be a dance. I remember it being along the same line of thinking, but I’m not sure.
You would think objectifying women would be the conduit to reach people who are inherently selfish, but even then, they’re like nah fuck you
People follow their emotions. It feels bad for a poor person to get a “handout”, and it feels good for a “bad” for a bad person to be punished. That’s pretty much it. Multiply it by “my in-group is good and my outgroup is bad”, and you get conservatism.
Notice that it’s a stupid world view. It’s at the level of toddlers.
If we want to change how these people act, we need to reach them on their level. Facts won’t do it. They’re not listening to facts. You need to make them feel good when they do the right thing.
It does feel like being held hostage by a cranky toddler, yes. We have to pander and beg and appease them because they’re too selfish and stupid to realize it would be better for everyone, including them, if they just cooperated.
It feels bad for a poor person to get food is only true under a capitalist brainrot worldview. Throughout most of human history it felt good to help the poor.
I’ll keep it real with you, I ain’t pandering to these people. You can do that without me. I wish you the best of luck with that. I’d hate myself too much for it. Guess it takes a better person.
Can’t we put them in timeout or something?
there is a spectrum of how much comfort are you willing to give up to help others (including your future self). some people are against to give up even slight comforts in order to make things better (like, people visceral reactions to some “meatless mondays” proposals. or people being unwilling to reduce on-street parking even when by any meaningful metric it improves the quality of life for everyone)
Others are willing to give much more, but most people still have limits (for example, being willing to die for a cause is much rarer than people who are willing to go to a peaceful protest)
right, but I’m saying this in the context of things that are literally more beneficial. Dying is not literally more beneficial.
Like it costs $3 to give someone a loaf of bread. It costs $10k or something to shove them in jail for theft.
The problem is how these people view “fairness.”
To them it’s “unfair” that “I have to work and buy my own food, while you take my hard earned money and give it to someone who doesn’t work!” (Not my mentality, just providing their argument)
They don’t care about the cost to imprison because “they broke the law. If I break the law I go to jail.” at that point cost doesn’t matter to them.
I know that you’re explaining the argument and not actually endorsing it, so this isn’t directed at you:
You know that they just get given food at jail, right? And it’s still your money paying for that. And now those people are literally restricted from participating in society. If we fed them without jailing them, they could hold a job and spend money and provide to their community; instead we are paying for a punishment hotel to house and feed them in isolation. So if you subtract the cost of food from both sides since we’re feeding them either way, you just want to pay a lot of money to make them miserable, and also waive any benefit that society could recoup from having them be fed.
Pretty much what they want, but some are even worse. There is a phrase “3 hots and a cot” to mean 3 meals and a place to sleep. People like my uncle say it with disgust, as if they shouldn’t be fed, that they’re somehow on an enviable vacation being in prison… They’re so gross…
Yep, familiar with that phrase. I’ve also heard stories of people “robbing” banks for a dollar just so they could get put in jail for that bare minimum of food and shelter (and idk if it’s true but the unhesitating believability of it alone is a damning indictment). So really, by withholding food and shelter from free people, we’re incentivizing criminal activity.
Do these law & order, fiscal conservative republicans want to lower the crime rate and reduce spending or not?
Unfortunately I think a lot of these people are like that fox news host… “Just kill em all.” :(
For a lot of people, they feel better being able to put “those people in their place.” Sure it costs them more to throw these people in jail, but then they get to feel superior. This is Donald Trump’s main policy – you, a mediocre white man, can now look down on other people, which makes you feel better about yourself.
Yes but then i wouldn’t get to punish anyone, which would make me sad. You didnt consider my feelings as worth more than 3$?
Ur pandemic example is flawed. Its absolutely quicker to just let everyone go about their lives as usual. The only people at risk of death where the elderly or those with comorbidities. Letting 1-1.5% of the population die would be far quicker and due to the demographics effected would have actually been good for the economy not counting the economic wins of not shutting everything down for ages.