Yeah, the ACAB people really have a giant, gaping hole in their philosophy if we consider Epstein and his associates. Like, what would they prefer happen to these people in their ideal world…? That an angry mob just shows up at their doorstep and beats them to death?
Um, yeah, you sound like a nightmare customer that they will be talking shit about later.
Should they have told you that the repair wouldnt be done in your time frame? Sure. But also, these are the sorts of things which very often slip through the cracks, and it is a life lesson to learn that if you want something done on time, you need to constantly ask “is this still on schedule?” Having an hour long public breakdown in their shop is not an appropriate reaction - at worse, it warrents a bad google review.
Also, it sounds like you went to a mechanic, not the DMV. The DMV is where you get your license and registration. They don’t fix cars.
I mean, if that’s the way you want to look at it, go ahead. It doesn’t seem like a very friendly world to live in, but you are welcome to it. However, here is how I look at it.
Humans observe other humans. They see humans doing things that are good for themselves and others, and they see humans doing things that are bad for themselves and others. They lump these actions into broad categories with only the necessary nuance needed to live their own personal lives. Then when they hear of a human who greatly values doing things in one of those categories, their interest in interacting more with that human increases or decreases based on their preconcieved notion of the thing. Humans communicate with each other, sharing information. And via communication through all of society, broad cultural consenses emerge about the acceptableness or unacceptableness of being heavily invested in a certain activity.
So the thing to realize is that if you feel like you are often socially rejected when you talk about your hobbies, it may just be that you need to rephrase them, and they will become very interesting to others. For example, if you like reading about history on Wiki, you can say “I like to learn about history”, and this might lead to a discussion of horse technology in the Mongol empire or something.
And if someone else says they like reading, but only actually read the most basic trash novels - well whatever. That’s not your problem. You are too busy talking about horse mounted archery.
Yes.
My point wasn’t to categorize certain hobbies as necessarily good or bad in a moralistic, but to explain which things are socially acceptable to have as hobbies. I don’t decide what is socially acceptable. Society does. I am just observing and explaining my observations.
Will put a vote in for blue collar work. Since the work tends to have obvious checkboxes that indicate “done”, once your boss thinks you are competent you can pretty much just work on your own. Especially if you work in something like new commercial construction - literally just show up, get a quick run down of tasks for the day, and then you are heads down doing whatever it is you are doing. Maybe you tell someone to move because they are in your way.
Another benefit is that no one expects you to be polite when working blue collar. Of course, this means sometimes the racist shitheads get a pass. But it also means your social foibles will tend to be overlooked. Status in blue collar work tends to be assigned less on social acuity, and more on one’s ability to get the job done quickly so everyone can go home.
???
I mean, if you gather up several thousand people who hate ads more than they like youtube, I’m sure this would work fine. But most people prefer youtube with ads to no youtube, and they almost certainly don’t hate ads enough to uproot their whole lives and move to a different geographic location. I’m not saying that ads are an immutible part of nature - I’m saying they arent a big enough deal to be worth it to most people. Any given individual is far better off by simply using ad blockers
I mean, I assume what you mean is bans on, like, ads on youtube.
Unfortunately, suppose you actually passed this legislation and the courts upheld it (idk if it would work, ianal). Well then one of two things would happen:
I’ve heard this stereotype before of “powerful people want to be dommed.” But I feel like I need more compelling evidence. My null hypothesis is that power accumulated in real life either corresponds to or has no relation to the desire for power in a sexually charged space. However, the “powerful people wanna be dommed” trope persists because:
I’d agrue that it is about social perception, not reality. If you say your hobby is reading, everyone assumes you are reading Steinbeck, and if your hobby is gaming, you must be playing COD.
Also, saying “I’m a foodie” is socially acceptable - people might think you’re pretentious, but will understand there is a level of intellectual engagement, skill, learning, and exploration that goes into it. If you say “my hobby is eating”, on the other hand, they will be a bit nonplussed, and might imagine you taking great pride in eating 200 McNuggets in one sitting. Same with “I like wine tastings” or “I’m a brewer” vs “I like drinking”; or “I like to dance” vs “I go clubbing.”
I think all these things fall squarely into “socially acceptable”.
I think bee keeping is super neat! But as you said, can be expensive. And from what I’ve heard, can be more difficult than you anticipate due to modern pathogens.
At the end of the day, you should just do what you think is cool and what interests you. But maybe just don’t list DOTA on your Hinge profile.
Yes, for a very small, sad, lonely segment of the population.
Otherwise, no. They are definitely not “a thing”.
Yes.
The difference is between “things that are acceptable to do” vs “things that are acceptable hobbies.”
It’s like saying “I watch trashy tv as a hobby” - it implies that it takes up a considerable amount of your time, you put a non-negligible amount of effort or money into it, you might be trying to improve at it, or you consider this a significant part of your identity. It isn’t just “how you unwind” or “a guilty pleasure” - it is a significant part of your life.
What is the difference between acceptable and unacceptable hobbies? Acceptable hobbies improve the individual engaged in them and the world around them, while unacceptable hobbies degrade the individual and the world around them (as measured by the amorphous cultural consensus of the time). Hence:
Acceptible hobbies:
These hobbies have the effect of making the individual more active, more social, more creative, and more learned, while also often providing things to others.
Unacceptable hobbies:
These hobbies have, at best, a neutral effect on the individual or society.
Of course, many here will be offended, and will say “hey, I use gaming as my main form of social interaction with friends who live on the other side of the country - you’re making invalid assumptions here!” Well, sure - but this isn’t about my personal opinion of gaming. It is about society as a whole’s general perception of it. Argue with me all you want - it doesn’t change the perception of all of society.
Similarly, many will rightly point out “Hey, that middle aged mom spends hours every day on Candy Crush! I shouldn’t be judged any worse than her!” Sure - but again, she doesn’t consider Candy Crush to be a hobby. It is just something to kill dead time in her day. She might be an addict - but she isn’t admitting it, even to herself.
And that’s the obvious issue (just remember how many times the reddit geniuses “cracked the case” only to be completely wrong about everything).
Who does the work of tracking them down to arrest them - they are super rich, they have the ability to go to any number of locations and live comfortably indefinitely. You need people to find and question associates, perform wiretaps and search known residences and properties, trace bank accounts, and file extradition paperwork. And in any reasonable society, we don’t want mobs to be able to do this on a whim to anyone they feel like, so at the very least we need a legal system to assess and issue warrants for these things.
Then suppose you track them down, and they are living in a mansion in some remote part of Jamaica. Who goes to arrest them? A Jamaican angry mob? Or is an American angry mob going to book a bunch of plane tickets? When they get to the front door, how are they going to handle the concrete walls, iron gates, and private security guards - possibly armed with military-grade firearms?
Suppose the suspect gives chase in an automobile - do you now have the mob jump in their personal cars to chase after them, trying to coordinate via cheap walmart walkie talkies and performing pit maneuvers like they saw on TV?
And then suppose the mob somehow manages to catch them. But maybe we decided we don’t want to be quite so barbaric as beating people to death on the streets - if for no other reason than the fact that we are often wrong about the guilt of particular people. So we arrest them and they are awaiting trial. Great. Where? Some random person’s house? In the stocks in the town square?
Our current law enforcement system exists because it solves problems that we have faced in the past. That doesn’t mean that it is perfect or that no parts of it should be questioned - but if your solution to problems in the law enforcement system is “end all law enforcement”, then you are, quite frankly, living in a childish fantasy land. You may as well say that the solution to law enforcement problems is to mount all cops on unicorns and have them shoot everyone with love-and-friendship rays.