Here’s a conundrum: what if most people wanted to organize the society in a certain way? They are doing what they want. Are they not allowed to do that? People who make complaints about not being able to do what they want rarely seem keen to grant others the same privilege.
Also, the guy in the comic is doing exactly what he wants - it’s just that he probably wanted a job more than he wanted to not wear pants. The issue isn’t not being able to do what one wants, the issue is that people don’t want any inconvenience for doing so. The more you learn to tolerate inconvenience, the more free you are to do whatever you want. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
You can’t both resist a system and then demand to be able to enjoy the fruits of the system you are resisting.
Some people really do just need to burn down the pancake factory and then get upset that they can’t get the pancakes from that factory anymore. There’s a certain country doing exactly this right now. Some people just need to learn by experience.
There are ways to resist short of burning shit down. The idea that this is a dichotomy is exactly the “yet you participate in society, interesting” meme.
He only “wants” a job because of the oppressive systemic forces that dictate the society he lives in necessitating him having one or else his access to material necessities be threatened.
The guy is not doing what he wants. He is being forced into doing what he is told to do (work a meaningless office job) because he was conditioned in childhood to do just that by his parents instead of doing what he wants.
oppressive systemic forces that dictate the society he lives in necessitating him having one or else his access to material necessities be threatened.
The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else. Why should one individual’s wants matter more than the wants of a collective? Isn’t that just you trying to impose your wants on everyone else?
Your questions are valid but your first sentence is logically flawed, as written; It also presupposes that society was built as it is with intention, rather than shaped over time by an accumulation of processes, some of which included violent coercion.
People are not animals. You have opted into being controlled. There’s plenty of ways out but people generally want the benefits of living under certain control more than they want freedom.
You can’t resist a system and simultaneously demand the right to enjoy the fruits of that system. Like I said, the more you are willing to tolerate inconvenience, the freer you are. This includes acceptance of anything from having less luxury, to acceptance of premature death. Everyone is absolutely free to live in accordance to their tolerance - they have no choice in the matter.
At every point people can always want whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean it can come to pass as it may not be in the realm of possibility. I could want to go to the moon right this minute but it obviously isn’t going to happen. A person about to die in a prison cell may want to get out but that’s probably not going to happen. They are free to want it and by that, they necessarily also want to suffer from the perceived lack of freedom. Or, they can want what is in the realm of possibility, and have their wants met. Prison or the mundane existence of earth’s gravity, you have the option of wanting what is possible or what isn’t possible. Wanting the suffering of the lack, or enjoying what is given. But neither I nor anyone else can make someone want what they don’t. I can just point out that there are options and it’s on the individual then to then weigh if the options are truly in the realm of possibility for them - I can’t make that choice for them either.
I’m not sure how this point has any relevance to this discussion. No one brought up demands.
I’m just trying to rephrase “can’t have your cake and eat it too” as I’m starting to suspect that idiom is either too… abstract or too worn out to really land for people anymore. Maybe both. If you want two mutually exclusive things, at least one of your wants will necessarily go unmet. If you don’t want both mutually inclusive things, you’re in for a bad time. Wanting what isn’t the realm of possibility will lead to suffering. Not wanting the unpleasant but unavoidable part of something you really want will also lead to suffering.
We live in a society and you can’t have it all your way.
Social norms are necessary when people come together.
Someones interest in not wearing pants needs to be weighted against other peoples interest not wanting to see their hairy balls halfway falling out of their slip. Imagine if that coworker whose “jokes” are just short of sexual harassment now gets to run around naked and rub his balls on your desk and you are not allowed to tell him to fuck off, because that would violate his “no-pants”-rights.
Hairy balls, hairy arms, it’s the same skin. Rubbing the balls is offensive as a cultural construct. No-pants rights don’t grant the right to be offensive. People are allowed to open their mouth but licking the desk is still unacceptable. Touching somebody who doesn’t want to be touched is offensive, even while wearing gloves or using a stick.
However people not wearing pants would make society reevaluate the social constructs about nakedness. People are trained to be ashamed about parts of themselves. It’s like being colored in a racist society, but for everybody.
The only thing that needs to be weighted is when someone’s actions directly affect others around them, not against the whims of others who need to learn how to cope with people existing differently than they would. Not wearing pants does nothing to no one. Your desire to not see nudity is your problem and your problem alone, and it is not a valid excuse to dictate the actions of others when those actions are harmless.
Some social “norms” are ass-backwards, based in toxic, archaic ideology only meant to oppress, and need to be dismantled to improve and create a free-er society.
That’s a nice hyperbolic hypothetical that exaggerates the issue, making it seem more than it actually is. No one is saying people should be able to go around “rubbing their balls all over” your personal property. That’s still harassment. Inappropriate and sexual “jokes” directed at another individual is still harassment. You would be completely within your right to tell them to quit fucking with you, because they are directly affecting you by doing so.
Being able to just exist while not wearing pants because it is how someone would be most comfortable, regardless of how others around them feel about nudity themselves, is not harassment, and they should be well within their right to do so, others around them need to learn to cope.
You are right that in your space you are free to be pantsless and as such I wouldn’t impose my presence and sensibilities upon you. In fact I would defend your right to be pantsless in your space. However if you decided to come to my space, I would insist on pants - failure to comply would be you imposing your wants on me without consent, putting your wants above mine. If you think that I should be okay with you being pantsless, why? Who are you to tell me how to live my life? Why aren’t you accepting people living differently from you? Me not wanting pantslessness in my presence only impacts you if you force yourself into it.
Extrapolate a bit why don’t you? If a group of people create a space with certain rules, it is a “public” space for people who agree to follow the rules.
… I mean this isn’t really a conversation about pants but I truly don’t care about nudity. I’m from a culture that isn’t anywhere near as neurotic about it as certain others. I still prefer some kind of covering on the privates though simply because I don’t want ball sweat, urine traces, fecal matter or vaginal discharge on my things.
Here’s a conundrum: what if most people wanted to organize the society in a certain way? They are doing what they want. Are they not allowed to do that? People who make complaints about not being able to do what they want rarely seem keen to grant others the same privilege.
Also, the guy in the comic is doing exactly what he wants - it’s just that he probably wanted a job more than he wanted to not wear pants. The issue isn’t not being able to do what one wants, the issue is that people don’t want any inconvenience for doing so. The more you learn to tolerate inconvenience, the more free you are to do whatever you want. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
You can’t both resist a system and then demand to be able to enjoy the fruits of the system you are resisting.
I’ve spoken with some folks who might arrrrrgue with that.
Yes.
So I have I.
Some people really do just need to burn down the pancake factory and then get upset that they can’t get the pancakes from that factory anymore. There’s a certain country doing exactly this right now. Some people just need to learn by experience.
There are ways to resist short of burning shit down. The idea that this is a dichotomy is exactly the “yet you participate in society, interesting” meme.
He only “wants” a job because of the oppressive systemic forces that dictate the society he lives in necessitating him having one or else his access to material necessities be threatened.
The guy is not doing what he wants. He is being forced into doing what he is told to do (work a meaningless office job) because he was conditioned in childhood to do just that by his parents instead of doing what he wants.
The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else. Why should one individual’s wants matter more than the wants of a collective? Isn’t that just you trying to impose your wants on everyone else?
Your questions are valid but your first sentence is logically flawed, as written; It also presupposes that society was built as it is with intention, rather than shaped over time by an accumulation of processes, some of which included violent coercion.
It’s not actually, it’s exactly as simple as I made it. Enough people wanted to violently coerce. Not enough people wanted to resist.
The notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population.
A cow, for example, may want to avoid its trip to the abattoir, but conditions have been created in which the cow’s wants are unattainable.
People are not animals. You have opted into being controlled. There’s plenty of ways out but people generally want the benefits of living under certain control more than they want freedom.
You can’t resist a system and simultaneously demand the right to enjoy the fruits of that system. Like I said, the more you are willing to tolerate inconvenience, the freer you are. This includes acceptance of anything from having less luxury, to acceptance of premature death. Everyone is absolutely free to live in accordance to their tolerance - they have no choice in the matter.
Uh… Yeah we are.
I thought we were aliens
I’m not sure how this point has any relevance to this discussion. No one brought up demands.
Is there any point by your view, excepting death, at which you believe a person is no longer able to exercise their wants?
At every point people can always want whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean it can come to pass as it may not be in the realm of possibility. I could want to go to the moon right this minute but it obviously isn’t going to happen. A person about to die in a prison cell may want to get out but that’s probably not going to happen. They are free to want it and by that, they necessarily also want to suffer from the perceived lack of freedom. Or, they can want what is in the realm of possibility, and have their wants met. Prison or the mundane existence of earth’s gravity, you have the option of wanting what is possible or what isn’t possible. Wanting the suffering of the lack, or enjoying what is given. But neither I nor anyone else can make someone want what they don’t. I can just point out that there are options and it’s on the individual then to then weigh if the options are truly in the realm of possibility for them - I can’t make that choice for them either.
I’m just trying to rephrase “can’t have your cake and eat it too” as I’m starting to suspect that idiom is either too… abstract or too worn out to really land for people anymore. Maybe both. If you want two mutually exclusive things, at least one of your wants will necessarily go unmet. If you don’t want both mutually inclusive things, you’re in for a bad time. Wanting what isn’t the realm of possibility will lead to suffering. Not wanting the unpleasant but unavoidable part of something you really want will also lead to suffering.
How do you know he’s wearing pants in the last panel?
Can someone decode what the hell this person is even trying to say.
We live in a society and you can’t have it all your way.
Social norms are necessary when people come together.
Someones interest in not wearing pants needs to be weighted against other peoples interest not wanting to see their hairy balls halfway falling out of their slip. Imagine if that coworker whose “jokes” are just short of sexual harassment now gets to run around naked and rub his balls on your desk and you are not allowed to tell him to fuck off, because that would violate his “no-pants”-rights.
Hairy balls, hairy arms, it’s the same skin. Rubbing the balls is offensive as a cultural construct. No-pants rights don’t grant the right to be offensive. People are allowed to open their mouth but licking the desk is still unacceptable. Touching somebody who doesn’t want to be touched is offensive, even while wearing gloves or using a stick.
However people not wearing pants would make society reevaluate the social constructs about nakedness. People are trained to be ashamed about parts of themselves. It’s like being colored in a racist society, but for everybody.
Yea fuck that authoritarian mentality.
The only thing that needs to be weighted is when someone’s actions directly affect others around them, not against the whims of others who need to learn how to cope with people existing differently than they would. Not wearing pants does nothing to no one. Your desire to not see nudity is your problem and your problem alone, and it is not a valid excuse to dictate the actions of others when those actions are harmless.
Some social “norms” are ass-backwards, based in toxic, archaic ideology only meant to oppress, and need to be dismantled to improve and create a free-er society.
That’s a nice hyperbolic hypothetical that exaggerates the issue, making it seem more than it actually is. No one is saying people should be able to go around “rubbing their balls all over” your personal property. That’s still harassment. Inappropriate and sexual “jokes” directed at another individual is still harassment. You would be completely within your right to tell them to quit fucking with you, because they are directly affecting you by doing so.
Being able to just exist while not wearing pants because it is how someone would be most comfortable, regardless of how others around them feel about nudity themselves, is not harassment, and they should be well within their right to do so, others around them need to learn to cope.
You are right that in your space you are free to be pantsless and as such I wouldn’t impose my presence and sensibilities upon you. In fact I would defend your right to be pantsless in your space. However if you decided to come to my space, I would insist on pants - failure to comply would be you imposing your wants on me without consent, putting your wants above mine. If you think that I should be okay with you being pantsless, why? Who are you to tell me how to live my life? Why aren’t you accepting people living differently from you? Me not wanting pantslessness in my presence only impacts you if you force yourself into it.
What about pants in public? Are they required?
Extrapolate a bit why don’t you? If a group of people create a space with certain rules, it is a “public” space for people who agree to follow the rules.
I am curious to know if you think that there is more to the requirement to wear pants than historic reasons.
… I mean this isn’t really a conversation about pants but I truly don’t care about nudity. I’m from a culture that isn’t anywhere near as neurotic about it as certain others. I still prefer some kind of covering on the privates though simply because I don’t want ball sweat, urine traces, fecal matter or vaginal discharge on my things.
What about non-hairy balls 👀
“Be a good sheep and fall in line, stop daring to live in a free-er world, accept your place as a peasant and be content with what you have.”