Hacker News Reader

Comment by LB232323 | Hacker News Reader

It's not a character flaw or lack of skills in not being able to "sell yourself". It's a sense of dignity and pride as a working person.

You are not a commodity, you are a human being. You may look like a commodity to a business owner, but you refuse to allow yourself to become one.

Honesty and honor are worth more than money. There is money to be made in making yourself into a sort of corporate dog, but it will leave you feeling empty inside.

I am definitely not politically conservative, but I live in a conservative way as well. I don't think it's superior, but it's nice to have peace and stability.

View on HN

> You are not a commodity, you are a human being

You know who else talked about the commodification of labour? M- is dragged off stage by angry HN audience

(Seriously, this is an interesting and important discussion to have - the dignity of labour and non-financial values - and it's interesting to watch a number of conflicting arguments made here which have been made loudly and vehemently by various historical figures)

> You know who else talked about the commodification of labour? M- is dragged off stage by angry HN audience

I mean HN is the news aggregator for ycombinator, an entrepreneurial startup incubator.

Doesn't mean there aren't good points there, but this is a tech news site for technology capitalists. This is the culture that gave us hackathons and death marches and veneration of guys like Steve Jobs.

It also gave us Free Software and Open Source. Not quite the same people as Y Combinator, but there's definitely an overlap. Certainly you also see an awful lot of calls for the elimination of walled gardens and for sharing important pieces of corporate-owned infrastructure (such as the dominant social media sites).

Cynically, it does look a bit as if people are M---ist when it comes to other people's stuff and capitalist when it comes to their own. But of course, often these are different individuals, who only seem to act as if there's a collective opinion.

M who?

Karl Marx.

Thanks. Obvious once pointed out :-)

It's conservative only if you think of this ongoing extreme financialization of everything as progress.

I am not really sure of what it is you call honor though. To me it is a word whose meaning I don't really understand whose main purpose seems to justify leaders in sending people to their death at war and by men to justify murdering women/other men. It is at best anachronic, at worst dangerous. (Of course I am not accusing you of promoting murder but that's a word that has a sad history and I hope we get rid of it in the context of our daily lives )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

Not sure if you are talking to me, or the parent.

I used the word "Honorable," as it seemed more effective than "Integral" (as in "having Integrity).

As far as I know, that word isn't on any blacklist. If it ends up there, I'll find an alternative.

In the meantime, I'd gently suggest that accusing decent folks of supporting the murder of female children might not be the most effective way to start good relationships.

Look at the indentation, I am clearly responding to the parent. Especially to : "Honesty and honor are worth more than money."

I don't think "honorable" has the same meaning and I did not even see it when I read you post.

I specifically edited my post to explain I was not accusing parent of supporting murder but maybe you were already writing yours and did not see that part.

No it is just on my blacklist and the only way I can enforce that blacklist is by trying remind anybody who uses it whence it came. Not trying to launch a censorship campaign by any means.

The root word of "honor" is not honor killings, just to be clear.

The word was used in a sense. You hijacked the thread with an antonymnic homophone. Seeing this a lot recently.

I reckon it was a hijack but just as when I see the world love, it is always interesting to point out how the word has been socially used. It is not unusual for an hn discussion to become fairly distant from the original topic, this is conveniently allowed by threads, I did not think of it as a problem.

I personally like this definition, from one of Lois Mcmaster Bujold’s books: “ Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself.... The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same....There is no more hollow feeling than to stand with your honor shattered at your feet while soaring public reputation wraps you in rewards. That's soul destroying. The other way around is merely very, very irritating.”

Like Charles Cooley said "I am not what I think I am, and I am not what you think I am. I am what I think you think I am."

Say, what is honor? 'T is the finest sense

Of justice which the human mind can frame,

Intent each lurking frailty to disclaim,

And guard the way of life from all offense

Suffered or done.

Wordsworth.

Another fan of the Vorkosigan Saga I take it? Excellent quote, and one I’ve had cause to remember personally.

Honor just means doing the right thing, and it is also the respect you receive for doing so. The history of the word just means being a good person.

Honor in terms of death and politics is often a manipulated distortion of what is right.

Doing the right thing is often difficult, and this notion is used to manipulate people into killing each other.

There is honor in not selling your dignity for money, or in doing the right thing when it is unpopular or difficult.

There is no honor in killing people to enforce an oppressive power structure. It's about your personal choices, it's not inherently political.

> Honor just means doing the right thing

You’re not wrong, but anyone can do “the right thing” when the incentives are aligned already. I’d say that honor requires one to do the right thing even when doing the wrong thing could be immensely profitable, and even when nobody would know.

Right, that's exactly what I said. Honor as a concept is used to manipulate people, and making a lot of money often involves doing dishonorable things.

honor means recognizing the divide between your self as you experience it or wish it to be, and the 'you' enacted upon the world, and working to align the latter with the former. this can be manipulated in bad ways, obviously, but to be honorable is to manifest your virtue.

'honor killing' is a result of corporate identity -- cultural understandings of the self as inseparable from the family that created you. western culture generally does not carry this view, and treats people as individuals. individual honor is generally not burdened by the actions of your relatives unless one plays a direct role in them.

Well, this is a really weak argument. Honor is inward looking, about the individual and whether they can live with themselves.

>that's a word that has a sad history and I hope we get rid of it in the context of our daily lives

Please dont start that cancel culture nonsense because the word has previously been used in a way you don't like. You are a symptom of a society that lacks personal and community values to live by, believing mockery of pursuing the narrow, straight path. Im not talking out of my anus either, Im guilty as much as anyone here of perpetuating tech that has and will prostitute whole generations of people in ways never seen in human history. Think a little before you write.

Cancel that cancel culture?

> To me it is a word whose meaning I don't really understand whose main purpose seems to justify leaders in sending people to their death at war and by men to justify murdering women/other men

You're conflating honor and valor. Honor can be derivative of valor, certainly, but they are distinct. What you're insinuating is that the military teaches honor and valor, but that'd be impossible even if they wanted to. What they do teach is a team mentality, where the safety of your fellow team mates comes before your own. I'm reminded of the story of Jason Dunham [0], citation:

    For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, First Marine Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004. Corporal Dunham's squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq, when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west. Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander's convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah. As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire. Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy. Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons. As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service

Nobody taught Jason Dunham that a kevlar, a plate carrier, and a body can stop the force of a Mills bomb. What he was taught was devotion to those he led. By living up to the standard of the USMC and USN in terms of devotion, in combination with the aforementioned properties of gallantry and intrepidity, he reflects honor on himself and by proxy the services.

Seeking honor in the service is generally a good thing - in so much as that you do the right thing even when people won't be looking; seeking valor is fairly frowned upon. Generally when I hear a story about people seeking valor you can tell the person in the story is highly annoyed, because it's considered excess risk and flies in the face of the values of the services.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Dunham

Can you eat honor? Can you sell it? What is the worth of a man besides his ability to profit? Seeing endless people of honor scrape out meagre existences while those who exploit others endlessly become billionaires is more enlightening to the worth of honor than our useless platitudes.

I think the issue here is that you’ve tied a monetary value to honor, when honor is often tied to other things and occasionally explicitly the lack of a desire to maximize profit.

It's not monetarily valued. It's not societally valued, in any tangible sense. Power is not allocated to whomever has the most honor. So what good is it?

Some beliefs and values are personal, and thus, intangible. Try to recognize that not everything good in life has to be (or even can be) quantified.

This implies that power is the only good, which is a hell of a way to look at the world.

Do you only care about things that bring power to you personally? Or do you care about intangible values that are important to you as a human? One defines character and personality, the other is just a way to achieve personal gains.

Can you eat profit? What is the worth of a man besides his honor? What profiteth a man if he gaineth the whole world, but loseth his soul?

Apparently Bill Gates has the ability to buy his back given his current PR and general perception at around 130BN so seems like it might not be a bad play. ;)

It’s a fair question. I’d say that if/after you’ve made your millions you may soon find that your life is no less empty, and that internal substance - however intangible - is all there is. The exogenous manifestations of it are honour, duty, morality and so on. I think the Stoic literature best explains it if ever you’re interested.

Can you eat or sell happiness? What about contentment, satisfaction, meaning or purpose?

I mean, no skin off my back if you want to frame yourself as a cog in the economic machine, but surely there's more to life than materialism?

Am I perhaps misunderstanding your post and are you instead making a point about the disposable nature of men as a gender group?

Wow, this is a really mean attack on people who can sell themselves... I think I can do so reasonably well, and I wouldn't say it has anything to do with what you're describing here.

I don't have dignity or pride? That doesn't make any sense... I can sell myself because I really believe in the product. I've done lots of good work in my life and I have genuinely useful skills that can help people or companies.

And I don't have honesty and honor? Seriously? You seem to think that all selling is the type that unethical used car salespeople do. That is wrong. Good salespeople are experts who work with you to understand a problem and provide a solution to it. This is what I'm doing when I sell myself - you need a product manager, and I've worked on many similar projects to the type that you need help with, ergo I think I'd be a great fit. Again, to call that dishonest or dishonorable is simply wrong.

There's nothing wrong with disliking selling yourself, nor do I think it's a character flaw - different people have different communication styles, some of which are not very self-promotional. Nothing wrong with that. But to make such vicious attacks on the ethics of anyone who can sell themselves is just baseless and cruel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com