it just doesnt work as a system in our current cultural framework

True. But our current system fits our cultural framework, because it has shaped it to be the way it is. That in itself is no reason to stick with it. Not saying this can easily be changed. But we shouldn’t lose sight of far away possibilities just because they seem far away. It’s worth it striving for a better world.

People like to contribute to society because it feels good. People will respond positively to you if you contribute, and you will feel good about yourself. and you will feel like you’re part of something bigger, that you matter not just to yourself but to others too. Look at how much voluntary work is being done in society in all sorts of fields, this is being done for these reasons, not for money. You could argue, that this is mostly in certain fields, and most work would never be done for free. For instance a lot of volunteers are care-givers, and it’s easy to see why this is very rewarding. But would people go into the mines to mine coal just to benefit society. Well no, in our society as it is certainly not.

But could it be that we’re conditioned to think about our society in this way? In our society people get paid to do such things, it would feel very wrong to us, if people usually get paid for dirty work, that suddenly this would need to happen voluntarily. That would obviously be really unfair. But we could try to imagine what a world would be like without money. If you live in a community that functions like a sort of small anarchist communist society, and you’ve never heard of money or being paid for stuff, then it’s not hard to imagine someone caring about the well being of his community and wanting to contribute for previously mentioned reasons: feeling good about contributing, having a certain status because of contributing. It’s easy to see how people currently think, but it could very well be that people currently think a certain way because things currently are a certain way. And that if the world would be different, people would also think and behave different.

Surely in any case there will be a limit to the ‘working extra hard’, and it might be different from where the limit is for people in our current system. But that doesn’t have to be a negative. Competing to gain as much money as you can often goes far beyond what seems healthy. Money is such an integral part of how our society functions that for many it’s become a sort of obsession. When thinking of how you could live a successful life some people can only think: if I earn a lot of money, then I’ll be successful. And obviously this is bollocks. You’re free to define life success by whatever measures you deem important, but comparative study will show that the ones who earn most aren’t always the ones that feel most happy and fulfilled. Focusing solely on money often just stems from an insecurity, if it’s just money than I don’t have to really think. It can feel comfortable to not have to think because this objective of earning as much as I can is predefined and I can try to optimize my performance based on that. I think a lot of people can see how that’s a very lacking view on how to live, and it certainly won’t be the most rewarding strategy for life if you want to feel happy and fulfilled.

You’re saying all human ambition is based on money-hunger and thankfully that is false.

That’s true, but if you’re letting it get to angry heated bitter arguments, that’s at least partly your fault. With an open mind and a friendly attitude you can mostly avoid those.

wow that’s bleak. Very few people around me share my political beliefs, but they certainly don’t disgust me. One of my colleagues beliefs every conspiracy in the book, she’s at the total other end of the spectrum when it comes to most arguments, but I’ve also noticed that she is the sweetest nurse I know, treating patients with empathy and compassion. Rather than coming to the point where you avoid arguments, I think people should develop the ability to have differences of opinion without being revolted by the other. An opinion doesn’t define who or what someone is in the slightest.

Are arguments really that bad? I think this is a rather cynical point of view. I don’t want to reach this stage.

such a lovely design. I love things that stack perfectly.

should it be MOBAs?

I never said I don’t mind them, and I also never said I’d join them. I’m just suggesting we keep the conversation going and settle things with words rather than violence. It’s difficult to have a conversation when you are unable to understand a point someone is making. Not saying you should agree at all. It’s fair to have a difference of opinion. But you just misrepresent what I’m saying, that doesn’t really lead to an interesting conversation in my opinion, so I’m out.

You literally talk in your other reply about how you’ll join them

you did actually tell me in your comment that you don’t really mind nazis as long as they’re not being violent towards you.

This is becoming quite bizarre. Reading back my comments I don’t even know which line you are misinterpreting cause I don’t think I’ve said anything that even comes close to your accusations. Of course I’m not advocating to join nazi’s. I think you’d be better of sticking to what people actually say, or else every online conversation is going to derail as much as this one apparently already did.

You don’t have any sort of morality or ideology underlying your objection

You make a lot of assumptions

Also, punching Nazis is always morally correct.

I know the idea behind the paradox of tolerance, I’m just saying that at the very least, it’s not as simple as that. There are definitely grey areas, and IT IS complicated. You really miss the bigger picture if you say it’s always ok to punch a nazi. I’d advise you to read up on the Spanish civil war, how that spun out of control, violence from both sides leading to more violence. You shouldn’t just look at the act of punching a Nazi no it’s own, you should take a helicopter view and see that a punch, will lead to counter punches, which will lead to potentially full blown civil war. You shouldn’t pride yourself in taking a firm stance if doing so is ultimately counterproductive. So what’s the alternative? The alternative is sitting down, having a talk, drinking some tea and talking about our differences. And simultaneously trying to take away the breeding ground for fascism, for instance an upper class that’s treating society as their farm animals, getting all the riches, while looking down on them from their high horses. Punching these people and limiting their freedoms is putting oil on the fire.

It’s with polarization that things spin out of control. When the left thinks the right are nazi’s and the right think the left are commies, that’s when people become less critical of themselves and hatred spirals into a civil war, and the one that’s on top will do anything to prevent the ‘enemy’ taking over. Tolerating verbal intolerance is a good thing. That’s why your own statement is tolerated, it’s literally advocating intolerance (be it indirectly in favor of tolerance). I really don’t believe your statement is correct. Tolerance leads to tolerance. Intolerance leads to more intolerance. Not tolerating intolerance doesn’t make it disappear, it just makes people feel more strongly about it. When I cant think something or people look down on me for it, I am definitely gonna think it some more. Actual violence should of course not be tolerated. Ergo: is it ok to punch a nazi? No ofcourse not… unless the civil war has started yet and all tolerance is gone, but let’s not go there…

Never heard of the man. Sometimes I wish we the internet would pay more attention to people that inspire us than to people that disgust us.

‘me searching for it online’. Try not to use the G-word

Not a programmer either, nurse in a psychiatric hospital. But I am interested in FOSS and web 3.0.

This is my favorite band at the moment.