Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I appreciate a good "should not have to" argument with a lot of things, but it's becoming such a common refrain left to stand on its own with no argument more rigid to support the uncomfortable objective weight of "what should be" against "What is", I wonder, when looking at all the overwhelming evidence and indicators happening with such frequency and intensity of what factually takes place if "should" has any real weight as a counterpoint anymore.

There's probably a much less loaded way to phrase this question, it's escaping me right now-I'm afraid.

edit: This wasn't an attack on your argument specifically, it just conjured an idle thought to mind.



In an idealized mind of an 18 year old, yes, the world would be simple. People would not poke fun at each other, wouldn't be mean, would treat each other well, care for each other, not see flaws and hold no prejudice.

However, we live in a varied society which was pushed to live together in many ways forcibly. (This kind of conflict can be seen in Northern Ireland, historical Middle East, Rwanda, Sudan, India, etc. where disparate/different peoples are made to live together because by history they did not emerge homogenous-ish like Japan, Korea, Sweden (Suomi not withstanding), Estonia, etc. In these places people comingle but they retain their own identities and vie for dominance, justice, etc. Should we have conflict like this? Ideally no. Does it happen? It does. Can we avoid it? With lots and lots of effort --maybe and it could fall apart in one fell swoop.

So, yes, it should not be like that. A countrywoman should not be treated like an ignorant oaf who is out of her league in the big city --but there will be cityfolk who try to take advantage of the "bumpkin" -even in China. People may do this out of fear, bonding ritual, insecurity, ignorance, maybe outright malice, etc.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: