Know a guy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 258 points 3 months ago (61 children)

I am the guy with the truck.

The truck is proof that Americans can and will accept socialism.

It's brocialism.

  • source
  • hideshow 61 child comments
  • [–] 113 points 3 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 60 points 3 months ago (13 children)

    "What if we had a system where people could get the assistance they need. We could call it... Communityism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    But see, it's not fair if people just get what they need! You need to make sure people are paying for it!

    We can make it part of the system that each person gets help according to their needs, but each person also gives help according to their abilities. Yes yes. This is now definitely capitalism because it's transactions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

    This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions.

    Capitalism has nothing to do with transactions. Capitalism would be if the truck was owed by Benny, who would not show up, not fill it up with gas, not repair it, but would still receive half of pizza and 2/3 of beer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    You are correct that I was not describing capitalism.
    I was participating in the silly by creeping closer to full communism and still saying it's something else.

    And I'm not sure why Benny would only get half and 2/3s respectively. They owned the truck, so they're the one that did the moving. The others are just employees.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I'm pretty sure they were referring to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs which most definitely is not capitalism lol, it's a joke

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    It's not really capitalism without the involvement of capital, is it? It's more akin to a trade-and-barter-economy/society, where everyone involved should have a high level of faith in others

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    How do you think Kevin paid for the truck? With pizzas?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Sorry if it wasn't clear, but money != Capital, not necessarily. You can have money to exchange for goods, but as long as your money doesn't auto-accumulate via interest, dividends etc, you don't necessarily have capital. Of course this is mainly a discussion on definitions then

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    No, the truck is his capital. That's his means of production — presumably, not just of free pizzas in exchange for moving furniture, but even then, every dollar he saves by not having to pay for dinner could go towards paying off his car loan.

    On top of that he's saving on taxes because no money was ever exchanged for this transaction. Everything about this scenario is 100% capitalist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 69 points 3 months ago (40 children)

    The crazy part is it doesn't matter who you voted for, everyone on both sides would generally love to help their neighbor and would offer a hand. It's just when people get involved in the macro sense that they get filled with hate and anger. Makes me sad. Let's just all move couches.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Conservatives are often nice to people they know. The in-group. The problem is when it's a scary other. So they'll let Jose couch surf for a week while he sorts out his housing situation, because he's a good guy down on his luck, but they'll rage against Those People getting anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (34 children)

    Can we do that without the latent ableism that comes along with it, like the idea that if you can't help people move couches then you don't deserve anyone else's help either?

    This especially effects people with invisible disabilities, who are already viewed as lazy, but who also might be the most helpless when it comes to moving their own furniture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    I think it's kind of ablist to assume a disabled person has nothing of value to offer, like if they can't move a couch then they are excluded. "Moving a couch" could be anything, it could be filing taxes or cooking a meal. Disabled people are good at stuff too. I think it's really weird for you to make this assumption.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Honestly it's both. Plenty of people with disabilities have plenty to offer. A lot actually don't though, and they still deserve that helping hand.
    A family aquatintance has some mental and physical disabilities. They're just not going to be able to help in any way that isn't superficial. And that's okay. Their worth isn't defined by their utility.

    Attaching how worthwhile it is to help someone to their ability to provide a service inherently says the person who can't isn't worthy of help.

    We should be good to people because it's the right thing to do, not out of the expectation of a future repayment. More pragmatically, we should help based on the assumption that the other person would, and that if everyone acted like that the world would be better.

    I think the other person read a bit much into it, but their base point isn't wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Thank you! You phrased it better than I could.

    I find it wild that most people here can't see through their own assumptions. Like, everyone else needs to examine their own biases. Not them though, they could never be biased. It shows such a lack of self-awareness on their part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    My dad had a prosthetic leg, and he bristled at some of the polite or accepting ways that people would talk about disability in a way that stuck with me because he explained it. Basically a dislike of "handicapable" or the notion that you "make up for it" in other ways. To paraphrase: "getting my foot cut off in a car accident didn't come with some perk that balanced things out".

    I think a lot of the pushback you got came not from a place of rejecting that they could have a bias, but from the topic being broached as a confrontation of bias instead of an explanation of ignorance.
    People, like the poster above, who are being conscientious according to their understanding will get indignant or frustrated when that's met with an unmatched response.

    Assuming positive intent colors implicit "positive abelism", or other "positive -isms" that I'm personally less knowledgeable about, as unfamiliarity or ignorance rather than callousness or rudeness.
    In those cases, the person is very unlikely to disagree or pushback if informed about their blind spot. The key part in their head was "disabled people are just as important", sitting right next to "good people chip in and contribute". So they respond to "disabled people can't always contribute" with "disabled people are important!" phrased as "disabled people can contribute!”.

    Addressing it as a bias against disabled people doesn't fit because that part is correct. Need to address it at where the problem is: a misconception about the relationship between human worth, labor and utility.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    The same way it isn't about the couch, it isn't about the taxes

    To each according to their means, to each according to their needs was

    Or in brocialism terms "Autism be damned my boy can work a grill"

    Every metaphor breaks down if you read it at face value

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    "to each according to their connections."

    Show me one part of humanity's development that did not involve social connection. You, as a human being are part of an unbroken chain of social connections spanning back so far that there isn't even a word for how many generations it is.

    Maybe the system works for autistic people who can grill, but what about autistic people who can spend two hours explaining the history of North Rhine-Westphalia or Star Trek lore or any other special interest? You think someone with a truck will view that as an equivalent exchange?

    You're still focusing too much on the minutiae of the reference not the meaning behind it, its not about the grilling the same way it's not about the truck, the same way small talk isn't about the weather.

    To use your own words

    I don’t know how much clearer I can break it down for you

    ITS ABOUT MAKING A CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND DISCOVERING THAT NOT EVERYONE IS A CUNT.

    I have fully ND mates, who have special interests that they have built communities around. One of whom was genuinely incapable of spending time out in public without being in full body attack mode after less than an hour is now entirely able to spend an entire day out at a festival AND maintain enough social battery to continue spending time with friends well into the evening. Something they have fully admitted to me would not be possible five years ago.

    the idea that people need to be able to contribute something deemed valuable before they deserve to receive help.

    Some people enjoy conversation. Some people are bad at using maps. Some people need to be able to speak out their thoughts aloud to even begin to analyse them and require a rubberduck that can ask questions.

    "Something deemed valuable" can have many meanings to many people, but you'll never find out what they deem valuable by mentally labelling them as a degenerate that should not be interacted with the second they say something you disagree with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Are you suggesting that makes it okay to forget about outsiders? Because if that’s what you believe, then I challenge you to explain what makes xenophobia wrong without contradicting that sentiment that you’re relying on so heavily.

    Why would your first assumption be that I'm excluding everybody that doesn't fit into the niche?

    For clarity, if you want me to pass your purity test by telling you that Xenophobia makes about as much sense as stapling your genitals to a 2x4 and swinging said 2x4 at a hornet's nest, since we're ALL GOD DAMN HUMAN BEINGS THAT DESERVE RESPECT AND HELP WHEN NEEDED EVEN IF THEY ARE SHITTY.

    I don’t think anyone in their right mind would use that to argue that blind black men shouldn’t require additional assistance and accomodations that most don’t.

    Who's arguing that? We're talking about sharing what abilities we do have for the greater good, in this one tiny example posted- where one person has a truck, another has a need for a truck. They, as human beings, understand that helping people feels good, so they help each other in exchange for a 'peppercorn' payment of either a shared drink/a pizza/the acknowledgment of being the one that provides help the next time. (Based on the last line about the guys with the truck noticing he was strong for his size, they knew he was capable and wouldn't have asked something of him beyond his ability, because that's rude.)

    the more examples you list, the more you marginalize people who either can’t do those things, or can’t find someone who’s willing to help them out in the way that they need in exchange for one of those things that they happen to also be able to do.

    So you're assuming that I'm saying people that can't pay through any means don't deserve help? You REALLY think that about a stranger you know nothing about.

    Have you heard of the concept of goodwill? Of helping someone out for the entirely selfish reason of 'helping people feels good and it makes me feel good'?

    Do you know that there are volunteers currently digging people (people that couldn't ever repay them, some of whom are children, many of whom will become disabled as a result.) out of the rubble that was once their home at great personal risk from either falling debris or from further attacks that led to the homes being destroyed?

    But please tell me how the examples that I'm providing are exclusive and how they're not non-exhaustive examples of ways that human beings help one another.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    For clarity, if you want me to pass your purity test by telling you that Xenophobia makes about as much sense as stapling your genitals to a 2x4 and swinging said 2x4 at a hornet's nest, since we're ALL GOD DAMN HUMAN BEINGS THAT DESERVE RESPECT AND HELP WHEN NEEDED EVEN IF THEY ARE SHITTY.

    Wow, crystal clear logic you've got there. You struggle to even formulate a basic argument and yet you have the gall to accuse me of purity testing?

    If you don't see how xenophobia connects to the exclusion of outsiders in smalltown, usa, then it's honestly hopeless to try explaining to you.

    Why would your first assumption be that I'm excluding everybody that doesn't fit into the niche?

    I'm not assuming that about you. I'm telling you that this kind of thing happens. And you continue to act like it doesn't by pretending it's so audacious of me to point it out.

    So you're assuming that I'm saying people that can't pay through any means don't deserve help? You REALLY think that about a stranger you know nothing about.

    Have you heard of the concept of goodwill? Of helping someone out for the entirely selfish reason of 'helping people feels good and it makes me feel good'?

    That's not AT ALL what I'm saying, and you're twisting my words around on their head so hard that I almost think it has to be disingenuous.

    Literally my whole point is that those people DO deserve help, but that in this system where people depend on the goodwill of others, some people will be excluded because in many cases people's goodwill is either lacking, incomplete, or exclusionary.

    The examples you list have no bearing on it because I'm NOT SAYING that nobody has goodwill or does things for altruistic reasons. What I'm saying is that relying on that alone as a society to get everyone the help that they need IS NOT ENOUGH, because too many people LACK THAT GOODWILL.

    If you think those rescue efforts have nearly as much support and funding as they need, then you must not have ever been involved in anything of the kind, because almost always they have to do more with less. They could certainly always use more volunteers, more donations, but as I stated before THIS ALONE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH, because GOODWILL IS NOT AS COMMON AS YOU PRESUME.

    All of those efforts would be much better served by state-sponsored IGOs and NGOs that can do high-level coordination and collect and distribute the vast resources needed to bring these rescue efforts and reconstruction projects to completion. And instead of relying SOLELY on volunteers and hoping enough people care enough to make those sacrifices, instead there should be government-sponsored workforces whose entire jobs, training, and expertise revolves around providing the necessary labor. Because even though volunteering is great, it's simply NOT ENOUGH.

    How much clearer can I make that for you?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I agree. Even if the task at hand really is moving a couch, coordinatin, organising, etc. are crucial contributions that dont require physical strength or ableness to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Just because you can't lift the couch doesn't mean you can't help. Someone has to pick up the beer, someone has to drive the truck. Someone needs to hold the doors while they carry it in, someone needs to know a guy who can help, the list of things goes on for miles.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    My partner has disabilities and so they do not help lift the sofa. But they are a lot better at driving a manual truck than I am, so with a few pillows and adaptations in the driver's cab that is what they do when someone needs a sofa moved. Some disabilities prevent you from driving the truck too, but it's important as a group of sofa movers to make sure that everyone has something they can fulfill, even if that means planning the move. That can be incredibly helpful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    I don't think we understand your point or how it relates to this post

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    It seems like you're saying that by not mentioning people with disabilities in every story they are inherently being ableist. Or is your point that the person in the screenshot should not have helped move the sofa?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    My point is that we shouldn't be glorifying a society that relies on the goodwill of neighbors helping neighbors instead of funding structured social support programs that help everyone, including marginalized and disadvantaged people, to receive the help that they need.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Why can't we have both? I have a neighbor who has MS, and his neighbors help him out a bunch. He also gets government assistance and accessible public transport at his front door. Wouldn't you rather live in a place where you can depend on your neighbors for help when you need it than not knowing or caring about your neighbors? I genuinely disagree that glorifying helping other people is at all ableist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    You're missing the part where these "neighbors who help when needed" tend to exclude anyone they don't view as worthy of their help, and that can come loaded with as many biases as people have

    Relying on that as a society excludes people. That's what my entire point has been about. It's great that your neighbor finds the help that he needs, but that doesn't mean everyone does. And acting like naming one example, or even several examples, contradicts the statement that there are people who get left out, is erasure.

    It's like pointing to an example of a rich Black man and saying "See, Black people don't struggle with poverty"

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Cool thing about being disabled is you become the one who knows the people with a truck and a couple 20-year old children. Or the person who cuts hair for free. Or the person whose cousin does pro bono legal work for certain requests.

    In short, you become the key connector in that network: the Guy Who Knows A Guy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    My wife has a physical disability, she is an "asker", as in knows she will need help from others and so will ask random people, and also connects a lot of people together. Maybe not everyone becomes that, but it sort of forces you to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Why is everyone relying so hard on using specific counterexamples as a counterargument?

    Counterexamples only refute absolute statements. If I said "no one with a disability can find the help they need in this kind of system," then sure, listing a few people with disabilities who do find the help they need would be enough to refute that statement.

    But that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is "not everyone (including, but not limited to people with disabilities) can find the help they need in this kind of system."

    It's a completely different statement, because it's not an absolute. I'm not saying that no exceptions exist. I'm saying that exceptions do exist to the opposite statement, i.e. "everyone (including people with disabilities) can find the help they beed in this kind of system." Which, by the way, is an absolute statement.

    So in fact I'm the one arguing against an absolute, and people try refuting me as if I'm stating an absolute when I'm not.

    And unless anyone wants to argue that every single person in this system is able to find the help they need when they need it, then there's really no way to argue against my point, because my entire point is simply that that's not true. There are people who get left out, and any attempt to claim otherwise is erasure.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Kevin and Tony would definitely move a sofa for a person with disabilities. No doubt in my mind. They'd still expect pizza and beer tho, that's non-negotiable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    Maybe they'd judge you, maybe they wouldn't. No way of knowing. Sorry that you feel so mistreated by hypothetical strangers. I wasn't attempting to drum up any sort of trauma for you. I'm sending some lovingkindness out into the world for all living beings right now, and I hope you can get a little hit of it too. Be well.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    I am also the guy with the truck. But I do not drive 5-speed manual very well. So the truck lives at the house of my friend who is good at driving manual. He's kind of my Tony, I guess. The truck is indeed a community resource of anyone we are decent friends with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    We do socialism all the time.

    Neighbors bring each other gifts. Friends feed one another. Someone is struggling and we give them what they need, no questions asked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    That’s not really socialism, given that it is not universally distributed but depends on one’s social connections. A socialist system would have impersonal mechanisms for catching those who fall through the cracks due to not knowing enough people to ask for and repay favours. (And those people do exist: “everyone knows a guy with a truck” except perhaps for a socially isolated shut-in or someone who does not speak the language, or someone who does not fit in with the community in their truck catchment radius.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)