[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)