The kid says that school is competitive, and that’s bad—why can’t they all agree to work less hard (presumably so they can have more time to play video games)? “Getting students to accept the reality that they might just not go to the best schools is good, I guess. But unless it also comes with the rallying call of engaging in a full-on socialist revolution, it doesn’t really deal with the whole issue.”
This kid is the straw man conservatives present of socialism—the idea that the purpose of labor unions and socialism isn’t to have a decent wage, but to not have to work hard.
There is a competition crisis, though. The problem is partly the idea that getting into an elite school is a measure of your intelligence—it isn’t; they’re explicit that that isn’t the sole basis of admission, nor do they even have any measure of intelligence other than standardized test scores, so why not use the standardize test scores?
But it’s also the allocation of social attention. Each field of study is too large now relative to the number of practitioners. Merit doesn’t work anymore. There is no such thing as reputation anymore, except within a small circle of colleagues. Nobody trusts grades or recommendations. The problem isn’t competition, but that we have no functioning reputation system anymore.
There’s a difference between ‘working hard’ and actually inhumane conditions, which, while I did not experience them in high school, seem to pop up by default in a lot of situations. So I wouldn’t be really surprised if it happened in some high schools, because there isn’t much defending against it there.
So yeah the labor unions having the goal of ‘not having to work hard’ is a protection against a very serious and insidious problem.
The situations like: “Hey, I am not telling you to work so hard that you will damage your health. You would never hear me saying something like that; that’s a horrible strawman. Actually, please sign these papers that you were specifically instructed to take great care about your health, so that you can’t sue me if anything happens. Thank you! Now I want to remind you that if you get outcompeted by people who are less careful about damaging their health (which I officially know nothing about, because I prefer not to care about such details and only look at the outcomes), you may get fired. It’s your choice, though, and I take no responsibility.”
This kid is the straw man conservatives present of socialism—the idea that the purpose of labor unions and socialism isn’t to have a decent wage, but to not have to work hard.
I’m not sure that there is a consistent “straw man” in a way that’s relevant to this post. You might as well say: “See, this kid neatly disproves the other straw man conservatives present of socialism—the idea that the purpose of labor unions and socialism isn’t to have decent workloads and working conditions, but just plain greed.” Six of one, half a dozen of the other...
To be clear, I don’t actually think that socialism is a good solution (I didn’t list it as an actually feasible solution), and it was meant to be humorous.
Sorry. I’ve been reading English literary journals and lit theory books for the past year, and the default assumption is always that the reader is a Marxist.
The kid says that school is competitive, and that’s bad—why can’t they all agree to work less hard (presumably so they can have more time to play video games)? “Getting students to accept the reality that they might just not go to the best schools is good, I guess. But unless it also comes with the rallying call of engaging in a full-on socialist revolution, it doesn’t really deal with the whole issue.”
This kid is the straw man conservatives present of socialism—the idea that the purpose of labor unions and socialism isn’t to have a decent wage, but to not have to work hard.
There is a competition crisis, though. The problem is partly the idea that getting into an elite school is a measure of your intelligence—it isn’t; they’re explicit that that isn’t the sole basis of admission, nor do they even have any measure of intelligence other than standardized test scores, so why not use the standardize test scores?
But it’s also the allocation of social attention. Each field of study is too large now relative to the number of practitioners. Merit doesn’t work anymore. There is no such thing as reputation anymore, except within a small circle of colleagues. Nobody trusts grades or recommendations. The problem isn’t competition, but that we have no functioning reputation system anymore.
There’s a difference between ‘working hard’ and actually inhumane conditions, which, while I did not experience them in high school, seem to pop up by default in a lot of situations. So I wouldn’t be really surprised if it happened in some high schools, because there isn’t much defending against it there.
So yeah the labor unions having the goal of ‘not having to work hard’ is a protection against a very serious and insidious problem.
The situations like: “Hey, I am not telling you to work so hard that you will damage your health. You would never hear me saying something like that; that’s a horrible strawman. Actually, please sign these papers that you were specifically instructed to take great care about your health, so that you can’t sue me if anything happens. Thank you! Now I want to remind you that if you get outcompeted by people who are less careful about damaging their health (which I officially know nothing about, because I prefer not to care about such details and only look at the outcomes), you may get fired. It’s your choice, though, and I take no responsibility.”
I’m not sure that there is a consistent “straw man” in a way that’s relevant to this post. You might as well say: “See, this kid neatly disproves the other straw man conservatives present of socialism—the idea that the purpose of labor unions and socialism isn’t to have decent workloads and working conditions, but just plain greed.” Six of one, half a dozen of the other...
Hello, I’m the kid.
I think the quote is taken out of context:
To be clear, I don’t actually think that socialism is a good solution (I didn’t list it as an actually feasible solution), and it was meant to be humorous.
Sorry. I’ve been reading English literary journals and lit theory books for the past year, and the default assumption is always that the reader is a Marxist.