Wage Slavery

[trippinprincezz13]

I came in early to do some filing so that I could spend the rest of the day doing more important work. Also, I hit my elbow on the filing cabinet and it hurt a little  This is what it must be like to be a porn star 

Is that the gist of this thread? That seems to be what I got out of what I skimmed over, and all the attention it seems to deserve?

Trippingprincezz once again cuts the crap. 

I do really need to try to post more. Work has been pretty busy the last few weeks, so not much spare time. You know how it is....drafting motions, taking phone calls, it's just like getting gang-banged several times a day! Takes a lot out of you, amirite!?

[Freeky]

I think holist should put up or shut up: become a prostitute for a year, and see if he feels the same way then.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think holist should put up or shut up: become a prostitute for a year, and see if he feels the same way then.

And THEN see what he says when his pimp won't let him go at the end of the year.

[Igor]

So it seems that holist is saying that boring office work is similar to porn/prostitution in that they both involve getting paid for something you don't enjoy.

This is about as useful as saying that playing with a puppy is similar to getting mauled by a tiger; after all, both involve furry animals.

To be fair, he did acknowledge that there are also differences between "wage slavery" and prostitution:

(the exploitation, on the one hand, and the commodification of that most personal and private and joyful aspect of human life, which is sex, on the other hand)

But this is such a large difference that the previous similarity becomes moot and pointless. And so why even bring it up?

[Freeky]

I think holist should put up or shut up: become a prostitute for a year, and see if he feels the same way then.

And THEN see what he says when his pimp won't let him go at the end of the year.

Yes, exactly.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But this is such a large difference that the previous similarity becomes moot and pointless. And so why even bring it up?

To argue "to avoid losing", of course. 

[Freeky]

But this is such a large difference that the previous similarity becomes moot and pointless. And so why even bring it up?

To argue "to avoid losing", of course.

Because admitting he might not have it so bad is losing? 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But this is such a large difference that the previous similarity becomes moot and pointless. And so why even bring it up?

To argue "to avoid losing", of course.

Because admitting he might not have it so bad is losing? 

No, because losing an argument on the interbutts apparently adversely affects your ability to attract a mate.  Hence the big red baboon ass and the screeching on his part.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

But this is such a large difference that the previous similarity becomes moot and pointless. And so why even bring it up?

To argue "to avoid losing", of course.

Because admitting he might not have it so bad is losing? 

No, because losing an argument on the interbutts apparently adversely affects your ability to attract a mate.  Hence the big red baboon ass and the screeching on his part.

I attracted a mate on the Internet once.

Once.

[Luna]

But this is such a large difference that the previous similarity becomes moot and pointless. And so why even bring it up?

To argue "to avoid losing", of course.

Because admitting he might not have it so bad is losing? 

No, because losing an argument on the interbutts apparently adversely affects your ability to attract a mate.  Hence the big red baboon ass and the screeching on his part.

I attracted a mate on the Internet once.

Once.

I've had better luck hitting them with sticks.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But this is such a large difference that the previous similarity becomes moot and pointless. And so why even bring it up?

To argue "to avoid losing", of course.

Because admitting he might not have it so bad is losing? 

No, because losing an argument on the interbutts apparently adversely affects your ability to attract a mate.  Hence the big red baboon ass and the screeching on his part.

I attracted a mate on the Internet once.

Once.

From your tone, it seems that losing arguments may actually be a successful strategy.

And...

...You shouldn't hang me on a hook, Johnny.

[Freeky]

 

But this is such a large difference that the previous similarity becomes moot and pointless. And so why even bring it up?

To argue "to avoid losing", of course.

Because admitting he might not have it so bad is losing? 

No, because losing an argument on the interbutts apparently adversely affects your ability to attract a mate.  Hence the big red baboon ass and the screeching on his part.

I attracted a mate on the Internet once.

Once.

I've had better luck hitting them with sticks.

Sticks don't work here, and I can't afford to keep buying Meth for to attract them.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

But this is such a large difference that the previous similarity becomes moot and pointless. And so why even bring it up?

To argue "to avoid losing", of course.

Because admitting he might not have it so bad is losing? 

No, because losing an argument on the interbutts apparently adversely affects your ability to attract a mate.  Hence the big red baboon ass and the screeching on his part.

I attracted a mate on the Internet once.

Once.

From your tone, it seems that losing arguments may actually be a successful strategy.

it is. holist should try it some time.

And...

...You shouldn't hang me on a hook, Johnny.

Yeah. Sorry about that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In that respect, very near, or right up with.

This is where you and the rest of reality disagree.

I will unpack that statement. First, what I am saying is that working in a totally alienated manner (purely for the money) is bad. It is soul-destroying, demeaning, stultifying. This is straightforward Marxism 101, also, I think it is correct. (I don't think this about all of Marx' stuff, by the way).

And second, I am saying that in the vast majority of sex-work, as far as I can see, is totally alienated: the wast majority of people who make money by having sex on or off camera, are doing so purely to get the money. If they could get the money some other way, they would. But they can't.

And finally, I am saying, that quite apart from all the other horrible aspects of the sex industry (the exploitation, on the one hand, and the commodification of that most personal and private and joyful aspect of human life, which is sex, on the other hand), this in itself contributes significantly to it being bad. Of course the reason that the vast majority of sex-workers are totally alienated workers has a great deal to do with the fact that sex-work is the commodification of that most personal and private and joyful thing, sex - that explains the alienation aspect, but doesn't make it disappear. Funnily enough, Marx actually recognised that alienation is required in the system because it aids exploitation: as alienated work kills self-esteem, it generates people who are easier to dominate, manipulate, exploit.

And this is contrary to reality. This is my current best formulation. Can you go with that?

So, if I'm reading you right, what you are saying is that after you set aside the differences, sex work and other forms of work are pretty similar. Do I have that correct?

[Cain]

LMNO, does this strike you as being similar to what Yudowsky was talking about, when people try to widen the frame of their analogies as far as possible, instead of narrowing down the differences?

I only ask because I'm having dinner, it's bugging me, and you would know where the link to it was.

Nevermind, I found it.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ic/the_virtue_of_narrowness/

Within their own professions, people grasp the importance of narrowness; a car mechanic knows the difference between a carburetor and a radiator, and would not think of them both as "car parts".  A hunter-gatherer knows the difference between a lion and a panther.  A janitor does not wipe the floor with window cleaner, even if the bottles look similar to one who has not mastered the art.

Outside their own professions, people often commit the misstep of trying to broaden a word as widely as possible, to cover as much territory as possible.  Is it not more glorious, more wise, more impressive, to talk about all the apples in the world?  How much loftier it must be to explain human thought in general, without being distracted by smaller questions, such as how humans invent techniques for solving a Rubik's Cube.  Indeed, it scarcely seems necessary to consider specific questions at all; isn't a general theory a worthy enough accomplishment on its own?

It is the way of the curious to lift up one pebble from among a million pebbles on the shore, and see something new about it, something interesting, something different. You call these pebbles "diamonds", and ask what might be special about them—what inner qualities they might have in common, beyond the glitter you first noticed. And then someone else comes along and says: "Why not call this pebble a diamond too? And this one, and this one?" They are enthusiastic, and they mean well. For it seems undemocratic and exclusionary and elitist and unholistic to call some pebbles "diamonds", and others not. It seems... narrow-minded... if you'll pardon the phrase. Hardly open, hardly embracing, hardly communal.

Declaring all work as akin to prostitution is much more deep and wise than talking about the overwheming number of ways in they differ.