Wage Slavery

[Freeky]

Oooh! Thanks, Cain.

[Don Coyote]

Um.....are prostitutes paid an hourly wage, or are they paid by the john? If the latter then they are most assuredly not wage slaves.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

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?

My phone rang while I was in bed this morning and I had to sit up and service a client. It was a soul-killing experience. If I can ever beat my addiction to things like food and warm showers, I'm getting out of this business and going somewhere to start a new life. It's probably a pipe dream, though.

[LMNO]

I think Cain (and Elizer) have gotten to the spirit of the thing. Sorry I couldn't track tha down, I was in a meeting going over business requirements doing a double anal scene.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I think Cain (and Elizer) have gotten to the spirit of the thing. Sorry I couldn't track tha down, I was in a meeting going over business requirements doing a double anal scene.

[Freeky]

 

LMNO, have I told you lately that I love you?

[LMNO]

Hey, either way I'm getting my ass reamed, right?

I mean, one's only figurative, but its still equivalent, I guess.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think Cain (and Elizer) have gotten to the spirit of the thing. Sorry I couldn't track tha down, I was in a meeting going over business requirements doing a double anal scene.

MARRY ME!

[Dildo Argentino]

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?

'Fraid not. I'm saying one factor that makes unpleasant work unpleasant, namely complete alienation (a.k.a. doing something purely and exclusively for the money) is present in spades in sex work. Also, freelancing shares some further qualities with sex-work that make both unpleasant. And the performing arts share some other further qualities with sex-work that make both unpleasant. This is over and above the further qualities of sex work beyond being totally alienated work that are unique to it, which make it particularly, terribly unpleasant, or, rather, horrible, in a majority of instances.

[Kai]

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.

This is one of my most favorite LW posts, and totally fits the bill for this thread.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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?

'Fraid not. I'm saying one factor that makes unpleasant work unpleasant, namely complete alienation (a.k.a. doing something purely and exclusively for the money) is present in spades in sex work. Also, freelancing shares some further qualities with sex-work that make both unpleasant. And the performing arts share some other further qualities with sex-work that make both unpleasant. This is over and above the further qualities of sex work beyond being totally alienated work that are unique to it, which make it particularly, terribly unpleasant, or, rather, horrible, in a majority of instances.

So what you want to talk about is not what factors in society contribute to sex-work being uniquely eroding to the psyche, but about alienation, which sex-work generally has in common with other soul-crushing jobs?

So, why insist on borrowing terms, unless your thesis isn't strong enough on its own, using the appropriate vocabulary?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

SHA-BAM

I see no reason to continue talking in this thread; that post covers it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hey, either way I'm getting my ass reamed, right?

I mean, one's only figurative, but its still equivalent, I guess.

Every bead I make

is a tiny glass piece of rape.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Holist, have you actually read Marx? I am just curious because of the odd inconsistency of equating the freelance writer to the alienated wage slave when, according to Marx, the writer would be an example of a non-alienated worker who is directly in control of and intimately in contact with his product, from inception to completion, and as a freelancer is not working for a manager who micromanages his every move in the production of the product, but for the end buyer. Can you explain a little more about where you are coming from with that?

[Dildo Argentino]

So what you want to talk about is not what factors in society contribute to sex-work being uniquely eroding to the psyche, but about alienation, which sex-work generally has in common with other soul-crushing jobs?

So, why insist on borrowing terms, unless your thesis isn't strong enough on its own, using the appropriate vocabulary?

First of all, I don't exactly have a thesis, I'm looking for one in an exploratory sort of manner. Is that not allowed?

And: what I want to talk about is the composition of factors that make sex-work uniquely eroding to the psyche, and about which of those factors are entirely unique to sex work and which are not. And their relative weights.  I expect that some will be shared by a  smaller range of ways to make bucks, some by pretty much all of them. Is that allowed? ITT?