I support this because gig work as it’s currently managed seems destructive to workers rights in general, but this seems kind of questionable. Most delivery drivers are gig workers who can choose to not take deliveries if things are getting too icy, so why are the customers making the decision for them?
Because someone is going to be desperate enough to take the delivery. Giving them a choice is like putting alcohol in front of recovering alcoholics. Maybe nothing happens, maybe someone gets blackout drunk and ruins their life. It’s better to not even give the chance to ruin their life.
So it’s paternalism. Liberals know what’s best for the faceless workers who fetch their food. These aren’t addicts. They’re adults who in all likelihood are much more street smart and able to judge their individual risks than the people who don’t want to leave their house to get food.
Paternalism? People being considerate and thinking “Maybe I shouldn’t risk the lives of others for my minor convenience.” is paternalism? Whatever bro.
What even is your point? That these “faceless workers who fetch their food” should risk their lives to deliver food because ??? I don’t know even for what, so people who don’t want to leave their house wouldn’t have to inconvenience themselves?
EDIT: Just to be clear, I know it’s paternalism in general meaning of the term. I reject his negative connotation of the word.
My point is you don’t know better for them. Stories from a week ago were already talking about how many were avoiding delivering to DC, and calling them addicts who just can’t help themselves if an order pops up is infantilizing.
You don’t know better than recovering alcoholics either so I guess you do leave booze in front of them?
Let me give you a different analogy. Let’s say someone puts a revolver to their head and pulls the trigger. Do you call them fucking stupid and take away the revolver if necessary, or do you think “well I don’t know better than them, so it’s fine”?
Why do we need shitty analogies? Just stick to reality: delivery drivers that you want to manage because you think you know better than them. They are not addicts.
Fine. Then we have nothing to discuss. You think it’s okay for delivery drivers to put themselves in risk of getting picked up by ICE. I think that’s not okay.
Making a decision for someone else who is fully capable of making the decision for themselves, even if you think it’s in there best interest, is paternalistic.
I support this because gig work as it’s currently managed seems destructive to workers rights in general, but this seems kind of questionable. Most delivery drivers are gig workers who can choose to not take deliveries if things are getting too icy, so why are the customers making the decision for them?
Because someone is going to be desperate enough to take the delivery. Giving them a choice is like putting alcohol in front of recovering alcoholics. Maybe nothing happens, maybe someone gets blackout drunk and ruins their life. It’s better to not even give the chance to ruin their life.
So it’s paternalism. Liberals know what’s best for the faceless workers who fetch their food. These aren’t addicts. They’re adults who in all likelihood are much more street smart and able to judge their individual risks than the people who don’t want to leave their house to get food.
Paternalism? People being considerate and thinking “Maybe I shouldn’t risk the lives of others for my minor convenience.” is paternalism? Whatever bro.
What even is your point? That these “faceless workers who fetch their food” should risk their lives to deliver food because ??? I don’t know even for what, so people who don’t want to leave their house wouldn’t have to inconvenience themselves?
EDIT: Just to be clear, I know it’s paternalism in general meaning of the term. I reject his negative connotation of the word.
My point is you don’t know better for them. Stories from a week ago were already talking about how many were avoiding delivering to DC, and calling them addicts who just can’t help themselves if an order pops up is infantilizing.
You don’t know better than recovering alcoholics either so I guess you do leave booze in front of them?
Let me give you a different analogy. Let’s say someone puts a revolver to their head and pulls the trigger. Do you call them fucking stupid and take away the revolver if necessary, or do you think “well I don’t know better than them, so it’s fine”?
Why do we need shitty analogies? Just stick to reality: delivery drivers that you want to manage because you think you know better than them. They are not addicts.
Fine. Then we have nothing to discuss. You think it’s okay for delivery drivers to put themselves in risk of getting picked up by ICE. I think that’s not okay.
Fuck you, quote me.
In both the case of the alcoholic and the person with the gun to their head, yes that’s paternalism.
Is paternalistic behaviour always bad? Maybe not. But that’s what this is.
This is paternalism.
Making a decision for someone else who is fully capable of making the decision for themselves, even if you think it’s in there best interest, is paternalistic.