Nov 15, 2023Liked by Salomé Sibonex, Joseph (Jake) Klein
My good friend is a social worker in LA and sees first hand how life in the streets is for the thousands of homeless and addicts. She said to me recently, “It’s anything BUT kind.” Our times has an odd definition of kind. Great essay!
I really appreciate your example. Homelessness in LA is the exact situation that has come to mind for me previously when thinking about how that corrupted "kindness" doesn't provide what people truly need. And wouldn't genuine help be the best measure of kindness?
Another useful concept here to add nuance to kindness is "enabling"!
Nov 17, 2023Liked by Salomé Sibonex, Joseph (Jake) Klein
I don't disagree, and I favor anything that works....at the same time, it's lefties' inability to set appropriate boundaries and say No to their own tribe that enables the kindness-based vulnerability to begin with.
Nov 15, 2023Liked by Salomé Sibonex, Joseph (Jake) Klein
This was great although I'd argue that discussing the what the world "altruism" refers to is semantics. Maybe it's more altruistic to not be kind in the scenario you discuss in the essay.
A good article, it seems what you are pointing to, as did Rand, is tit-for-tat. The game theory strategy that creates best outcomes, including cooperation between non related actors, in an iterative game (such as societal interaction).
Treat people with kindness, if they respond with the same then continue. If they take advantage then respond with kind (sameness not kindness).
I understand "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" in the same way. As tit-for-tat.
I have moral agency, but I'm also flawed as all humans are. If I act like an a*hole then I hope people would tell me so. That is the moral thing to do. How else do I become a better person?
To interpret "do unto others" as always be kind is to act in denial of your own flaws. It is the ego projecting what is uncomfortable about the self and fantasising that one should only be treated with kindness. It is abdication of moral agency.
Agreed; true kindness is not unconditional and extended eternally. To have no conditions for our kindness just degrades it and ultimately reduces kindness overall in the long run. It seems like this might even follow economic principles of supply and demand; if kindness has no "price" (standards for obtaining), it will be extracted until it's scarce and that price eventually rises.
There's a lot of good stuff in here, let me say: especially regarding weaponised victimhood and passive aggression.
But I believe your axioms, like most post industrial-revolution westerners (including Rand), have been somewhat hacked by the hypnotic suggestion that they can only be parasites if they're poor or less powerful. If they're so poor or weak they wouldn't be very good parasites now, would they?
We literally KNOW the rich say that you can't get rich working and that making your money earn for you is the only way to real wealth.
And we also know if we analyze it a tiny bit more deeply that when your money is earning for you, that means another's sowing has become your reaping. It's physically impossible for money to be productive, despite the orthodox economic narrative about capital being an input (it is a claim on the output of others in material reality if you strip the social constructs aside). You're SOOOOO close to putting your finger on it, but you can't help regressing in to the primitive "Suck up, punch down" instinct:
Right! Makes me think of "strong fences make good neighbors." We should respect and value kindness enough to recognize when it's being degraded through exploitation. Truth and cooperation protect kindness.
My good friend is a social worker in LA and sees first hand how life in the streets is for the thousands of homeless and addicts. She said to me recently, “It’s anything BUT kind.” Our times has an odd definition of kind. Great essay!
I really appreciate your example. Homelessness in LA is the exact situation that has come to mind for me previously when thinking about how that corrupted "kindness" doesn't provide what people truly need. And wouldn't genuine help be the best measure of kindness?
Another useful concept here to add nuance to kindness is "enabling"!
Thank you so much!
I loved this. Forwarded to many! Thank you. 🌳
Thank YOU!
So happy you enjoyed it! I loved it too. Such an important concept for our times.
And thanks a ton for sharing. It makes a big difference ♥️
I don't disagree, and I favor anything that works....at the same time, it's lefties' inability to set appropriate boundaries and say No to their own tribe that enables the kindness-based vulnerability to begin with.
Completely correct. What I’m advocating is to teach them to say “no.”
This was great although I'd argue that discussing the what the world "altruism" refers to is semantics. Maybe it's more altruistic to not be kind in the scenario you discuss in the essay.
A good article, it seems what you are pointing to, as did Rand, is tit-for-tat. The game theory strategy that creates best outcomes, including cooperation between non related actors, in an iterative game (such as societal interaction).
Treat people with kindness, if they respond with the same then continue. If they take advantage then respond with kind (sameness not kindness).
I understand "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" in the same way. As tit-for-tat.
I have moral agency, but I'm also flawed as all humans are. If I act like an a*hole then I hope people would tell me so. That is the moral thing to do. How else do I become a better person?
To interpret "do unto others" as always be kind is to act in denial of your own flaws. It is the ego projecting what is uncomfortable about the self and fantasising that one should only be treated with kindness. It is abdication of moral agency.
I love your breakdown this!
Agreed; true kindness is not unconditional and extended eternally. To have no conditions for our kindness just degrades it and ultimately reduces kindness overall in the long run. It seems like this might even follow economic principles of supply and demand; if kindness has no "price" (standards for obtaining), it will be extracted until it's scarce and that price eventually rises.
Thank you x
Happy to be able to contribute to the conversation.
Your economic analogue is solid. There is a tragedy of the commons element to unconditional kindness.
It's getting used indiscriminately and without care until it is worthless/meaningless/unusable.
This is happening with language too. When everything is harm or violence or an ism then it becomes meaningless and loses all utility.
Isn't it the same as the psychological theory of setting boundaries? Why would one create yet another abstraction over it?
There's a lot of good stuff in here, let me say: especially regarding weaponised victimhood and passive aggression.
But I believe your axioms, like most post industrial-revolution westerners (including Rand), have been somewhat hacked by the hypnotic suggestion that they can only be parasites if they're poor or less powerful. If they're so poor or weak they wouldn't be very good parasites now, would they?
We literally KNOW the rich say that you can't get rich working and that making your money earn for you is the only way to real wealth.
And we also know if we analyze it a tiny bit more deeply that when your money is earning for you, that means another's sowing has become your reaping. It's physically impossible for money to be productive, despite the orthodox economic narrative about capital being an input (it is a claim on the output of others in material reality if you strip the social constructs aside). You're SOOOOO close to putting your finger on it, but you can't help regressing in to the primitive "Suck up, punch down" instinct:
https://blind-spots.org/2021/09/01/prestige-masks-parasitism-by-hierarchs-its-stunting-our-growth/
Right! Makes me think of "strong fences make good neighbors." We should respect and value kindness enough to recognize when it's being degraded through exploitation. Truth and cooperation protect kindness.