866 points by Tomte 3200 days ago | 316 comments on HN
| Moderate positive Editorial · v3.7· 2026-02-28 09:40:16
Summary Autonomy & Anti-Exploitation Advocates
This 1922 personal essay chronicles a man's decision to stop being endlessly accommodating and establish personal boundaries. The narrative implicitly champions core UDHR principles—human dignity, personal autonomy, worker rights, family protection, and freedom from exploitation—while illustrating the harms that result from unlimited accommodation. Overall, the content advocates for recognition that each person has inherent rights to control their own time, labor, and life.
"People never trust an accommodating man with important things. That may sound harsh and cynical, but check it up in your own experience. If you have a severe illness, for example, you turn to the busiest, most exacting doctor in town. The fact that he is busy and can’t be bothered by little things gives you confidence in his ability and judgment."
Some words of hard earned "wisdom": make sure the pendulum doesn't swing too far out in the other direction.
I went from being an accommodating person to an intense asshole - trying to dial it back now but it's hard, especially when you notice that people definitely respect you more for good or bad reasons when you're like that. Take it too far though, and it will of course go all the way around and bite you in the ass.
It's ok to be accommodating as long as you have learned to be introspective. We all have demands of our own time and money. Introspective accommodating people are able to help others in a generous way while protecting the time and resources they need to help themselves. It's a difficult balance to achieve.
Through experience, I've come to believe that this holds true in long-term personal relationships, too. While many will tell you that compromise is the key to a successful marriage, I think that standing up for yourself and who you need to be usually is more important.
There's a needle on the gauge of life that experiences pressure to move from both directions. When you are too accommodating or compromise unequally, the needle moves towards you and establishes a new norm for expected behavior. Your job should be to push back just enough to keep the needle balanced at a point where you retain a full sense of self and the space within which to exercise it. That requires a strong sense of introspection and can take years of adult life to develop.
Being accommodating is not necessarily a black or white thing. For me, it depends. I generally consider myself to be a nice easy going person who tries to be accommodating as long as it doesn't hurt me or others. Notice the "me" in my last sentence. Yes, be selfish and then be accommodating. Now, I can be a real jerk if I come across one. Nothing wrong with that.
When you're trying that hard to please every trivial whim of anyone, regardless of the cost to yourself: what are you compensating? Who hurt you? Who lied to you? I mean, there's gotta be something that made you rate the approval by others so highly, and your approval of others so unimportant. Something or someone that stole you from you. Would you take 2 weeks of the life of one person to save another person 5 minutes? Unlikely, and it isn't so different when you are one of those persons.
We'd be super weirded out if someone in front of us in the queue in the supermarket committed suicide so we could pay faster. Apart from that probably increasing checkout times for everybody -- just imagine the chaos -- we wouldn't even appreciate "the thought", we'd be like "how DARE you use me for this?". Most of us don't mind being catered to or even pampered, but we don't want others to just throw themselves away for us. There are limits, even though it's kind of invisible most of the time, there is a line where hurting ourselves too much to help others a little bit actually hurts society, and offends others, correctly so.
Last but certainly not least: this over-the-top, dysfunctional selflessness in the sense of having no self (or rather, not respecting one's self) attracts not only knights in shining armour, but mostly baaaad types. You might say abuse breeds abuse in that someone who for some reason is playing doormat is emitting pheromones for people who like to trample on others. I really don't mean this to victim blame at all, but it's sadly true. And the less you let others violate your boundaries, the clearer your sight becomes for what you can freely give for mutual benefit. E.g. don't spend 2 weeks to save someone 5 minutes, but do spend 5 minutes to save someone 2 weeks.
TL;DR: you can't be a good friend to others without being a good friend to yourself first.
I was explaining this point of view to a good old aunt of mine one afternoon and she exclaimed: “But, Joe, it is so selfish for a man to put his work ahead of everything! It’s unchristian.”
“On the contrary, it is Christian in the very finest sense,” I replied. “What was it that Jesus said when his parents rebuked him for his failure to keep his engagement with them on that first journey down from Jerusalem? ‘Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?’ He demanded. He had work to do — great work and little time in which to do it. Even He was no exception to the eternal rule that achievement comes only through the subordination of every power to a great ideal; and that no man is really obliging who does not first discharge in full his obligations to his work.”
As someone who trends towards heavily accommodating, I often seem to find my actions that I judge as selfish or arrogant are the ones that I get respect for. Definitely a phenomena I don't understand, but its real so it should be very valuable to learn where to draw the line.
I'd consider myself accommodating and people often come to me for all sorts of advice. Or help with their new amazing idea. It's nice having a reputation of being able to do a wide variety of things, including building companies which many people fantasize about. I have a successful SaaS with a partner that brought me an idea/opportunity because I had built a reputation as collaborative/knowledgeable/accommodating. I'll invest my time and expertise to explore opportunities and people know I'm candid.
However, I get ideas brought to me from everywhere, incl. friends of friends of friends. I'm happy to provide detailed thoughts and notes but now I make sure to challenge the person and the idea.
If it's a good idea, I want them to do some work upfront before I put anything else into it. Sad to say that most people start really excited about their idea, then I'll note that there are companies doing the same or nearly the same thing already, that they need to differentiate, what it's going to take to compete, etc and they will get completely deflated. Most of the time there's no follow up. That's why most people can't be entrepreneurs.
I've helped out way too many people in the past only to have them give up so easily. So if you're in this camp - I'd recommend challenging those that want your help - it's a great filter and also a way to say yes and no at the same time. You'll end up wasting less time and you'll still be open to great collaborations and more rewarding experiences from helping others out.
Something I have concluded: Genuine respect is a two way street. People expecting things they won't equally do in return are not expecting you to respect them. They are expecting you to kowtow to them and be their bitch.
Those people can go to hell. They will never give back. They do not for one minute believe in a social contract where both people invest in the relationship. They are just using you. Doing anything for them just signals that it is okay for them to use you. This is a terrible social contract to make.
You can still do nice things for other people because it serves something you believe in. Just don't agree to be anyone's bitch, ever, for any reason.
This rings a bit hollow to me, kind of reminds of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" -- a moral play, a fictional story passed off as autobiographical. Aimed to enforce our self-doubting instinct that we are somehow being a chump and letting society take advantage of us. Taking this literally is a path to regrets.
> “You are thirty-five years old,” I said to myself. “More than half of your life has already been spent. Who is living your life, anyway? Is it actually yours? Or is it a kind of public storehouse of odd jobs? A pile of days and hours put on the counter of the world with a sign inviting every Tom, Dick, and Harry to take one?”
This was probably the best part for me. We have longer life spans and so we trick ourselves into thinking that we have more time to waste on things we don't really want to do. We can procrastinate all we want but in the end, we still come back to this question without a single clue of how to answer it.
I have had a very similar realization regarding customer service. I used to think manners obliged me to be patient on the phone or at the customer service counter. That I should jump through all the hoops put before me. And finally if the outcome put before me was unsatisfactory that I should accept it and move on. But I've come to see that customer service is just as much something I'm paying for as the root service or good I'm buying.
Furthermore, the notion that an acceptable remedy to the problem that a company cannot have it's shit together enough to adequately service the occasional difficulties surrounding the transactions of its products is to impose upon me has become unacceptable in my mind.
I know this is going to sound entitled but think of it this way, it is also an entitled position to assume people should be obliged to fill out forms, perform extra steps or wait in line because of a mistake a company has made.
I'm not encouraging anyone to treat people like garbage but my threshold for corporate BS has become extremely low and I ask for issue escalation pretty fast if a company isn't fixing a problem.
For anybody learning to say "no" currently - learn to say "no" gently and kindly. I'm quite bad at this myself. I let people impose stuff on me, and once I have had enough, I have a very rude way of telling people off. One reason for this rudeness is a fear that I will lose something when declining (e.g. a relationship or money), so I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place - I don't want to help, but I feel I should not decline. Most of the times, my rudeness while finally saying "no" is out of place, e.g. when my fiance needs something from me that actually makes sense, or a customer who needs some small task that they would actually pay for.
Watching other people (esp my fiance) saying "no" ever so gently has me wondering how easy life could be if I were able to do the same. I'm practicing it, and I think I'm getting better at it. Telling the other person the root cause why you say "no" helps a lot to instill empathy for your situation. The root cause always stems from a need or necessity that you currently have, like need for rest/food/time to think/time to finish this or that task properly/... Even if you are lazy and simply don't want to help right now, remember that this laziness also fulfils one of your needs - probably you need to rest or think.
ADDED: Telling people that you just cannot help _right now_ also softens the blow. Also, if it's a customer then delaying might even be more beneficial than just declining - you might need the billable hours in the following week.
His drug store father example struck me - I don't really experience this "service worker" thing anymore, even when I was a service worker.
It seems to me the playing field is being extraordinarily leveled. When I was a bagger at a grocery store, nobody looked down on me. Maybe because of my town, but I was never expected to "serve" someone's whims - I was just expected to do my job, and when I did my job people thanked me.
Now whenever I'm out and about getting a thing done, I don't think of the people "serving" me as "serving me." I'm at the mechanic's, I'm pinging him for his expert advice. I'm at the carwash place, I'm asking them if they wouldn't mind doing the interior windows for a bit extra, etc.
Maybe I just am very lucky that I never underwent the brunt of service work torture because of my town, but is it still a "thing" to be asked to do a bunch of random shit at the convenience of others? Am I just so lucky in all of my jobs that everybody is respectful of eachother an their time?
Part of the problem is that “good manners” only seem to be considered in one direction. It is time to redefine “rude” to include people that do not know how to communicate their needs very well and/or are just super-entitled.
Why am I the one considered “impolite” by not dropping everything and helping you immediately, if you haven’t bothered to do things like:
- Indicate everything you have tried already (or worse, you haven’t done any basic research yourself)?
- Consider the possibility that I can’t respond instantaneously because my Inbox has dozens of other items already? Or that I didn’t answer my phone or your text because I was actually busy, or in a bathroom, or due to some other totally reasonable explanation?
- Consider that you are basically asking for free help, when there are people who pay for my time?
- Show even the slightest interest in helping others yourself?
I was an accommodating person until I realize what people value is not you doing what they want when they ask you. But it is when you doing something with them or for them with a motivation from within yourself, just because you want to or just because you feel like to or just because you think they deserve it or something like that.
To them I am just an all nice fellow who is kind to everybody. I earned their gratitude but not their love and in the process I hurt people that truly care and love about me.
Always eager to please other people before I even think about how it will affect me. Would you like to work two doubles in a row and potentially go insane? Ah sure... sure I'd love to!
Hey man, I'd like to catch this bus so I don't walk 6 miles home "Oh sure but before that, can you do this one thing..." ahhhhh
What happens when you let people walk all over you. It's funny too when I observe other people say no or F-off, people remember that and don't ask them to do things... hahaha. Ah well.
Wow! This thought thread is a what's what on the list of horrifying and inauthentic bullshit.
When did we lose the ability to have authentic relationships?
If someone needs your help and you have the capacity to help and they haven't burned you in the past, why not actually be human and help them? Perhaps one day you'll need help and they'll return the favour. If they don't without good reason, then next time say "hey, you know what, I was there when you needed help last time and when I needed help you were nowhere to be found, you flaked out on me because you didn't take my needs seriously." or whatever.
If you're hanging out with flaky people who give you bullshit excuses for not helping you out when you genuinely need help and you're not helping out when they genuinely need help then you don't have friendship, you have acquaintances.
Being a friend is being there when your friends need you and your friends being there when you need them. If one side of that relationship isn't being honoured, it's not friendship. One or the other of you is taking advantage of boundaries that aren't being enforced or respected.
Kudos to everyone for wanting more time for themselves to find value in what they do but when you get to the pinnacle of whatever it is you're doing and you realize you've cast aside your friends and relationships for whatever shiny thing it is that currently has your attention, I hope the shiny thing is more valuable to you than your friendships, because you'll have none.
Addendum: I don't want to devalue those that are selfless and just trying to scramble back a bit of time for their own selves, I get it, I'm an introvert, I need time for myself to do my own things too, but don't lose sight of the fact that human connection is where happiness and love lays. If the giving of yourself to make those you love happy isn't making you happy, then you should probably closely examine the quality of those relationships and either fix them or end them so you are.
Well, there's also the fact that the best doctors are the most in demand, so a doctor who isn't busy isn't that in demand, which is a good indicator that he isn't the best.
"Introspection" is not usually associated with standing up for yourself or your needs. It just means looking inward, which does require that you not be run off your feet taking care of others, but I've never heard it used to refer to the tactics necessary to acquire that space. "Self-advocacy" is one phrase that might be close. Or assertiveness?
You want to compromise on the stuff that other people find important and hold fast on the stuff that you find important. Goes for both relationships, friends, teammates, and business associates.
Most people come into the world assuming that their desires are everybody's desires. We live life by the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." This obscures that there's often a wide variety in the things we would like others to do unto us, and that assuming everybody wants what you wants often leads us to do exactly what they don't want.
It was a revelation when my therapist told me "You need to show love in the ways that other people want to receive it, not the way you want to send it." It hadn't really occurred to me before then that things I considered really inconsequential - checking if she got home okay, or leaving the porch light on for her at night - might really matter to my girlfriend (now wife), or that things that I considered really important - like listening to my latest theory on reality, or showing enthusiasm when I show her my latest product demo - might be considered inconsequential by her.
Many people have this intuitive idea that service & favors are a zero-sum game, but in actuality, some actions cost you a lot less than the recipient benefits from them, and some cost you a lot more than the recipient cares. It makes a lot of sense to perform favors that are cheap for you but benefit the recipient a lot. It's on you to figure out how much the recipient cares and how much time & energy you can spare for them.
Put it in the context of dominance and submission among apes and it becomes clear. The one who does nice things for you is displaying a submissive posture and trying to win your favor. They are probably your social inferior: beneath you in the hierarchy, or at most, a peer. The one who doesn't care about you and does what he wants, shows that he's above you in the hierarchy. And some people just can't resist their internal ape tendency to think "wow that's sure an impressive alpha ape right there." But some, who consider themselves alphas themselves, will take it as a challenge. Etc. etc. etc. All somewhat dreary thoughts in the light of soaring techno-optimist talk about the glory of the human spirit, but I think we're all still apes and I've said so, enough times on HN, that I'm at risk of becoming known as the "ape guy."
Manners are in fact detailed prescriptive means & methods for being submissive, or rather for sending submissive signals, as the default behavior in societies where there are more humans living together than normal, i.e. anytime after 1800 when the population really started to shoot upward and to urbanize. It ends up being very practical to train people to be submissive in an urban industrial society, because if you have a thousand supposed self-declared alpha-apes constantly fighting it out "out there," things become a mess very quickly.
Edit: to the respondents, I am intentionally keeping morality out of it (decency and so forth), because a strictly moralistic right/wrong judgment-based view didn't seem to be enhancing the parent's understanding. But dominance & submission, like morality, is just another narrow rubric for viewing the world, doesn't describe the whole world, and isn't the only way of describing the world. So it's best not to take it too far beyond a blurry big-picture view!
Might want to read the entire article, it discusses that. The original author was more charitable and more effective in his charity towards others in the end.
yep. it has become a weasel word where the speaker means to say "agreeable" but knows that "reason" has more social status than "agreement" in most contexts.
Collaboration is value-generating. It takes more effort and yields more return. Rather than 'pushing back' you work together to understand what is important to each party and find ways to meet those needs. This must be built on an equal foundation - your needle in the middle - for most effective good-faith negotiation. Your partner needs to be reasonably intelligent and reasonable for this to work.
You need to teach people what's important to you, rather than expecting them to read your mind.
Highly recommend the negotiation book 'Getting to Yes' for a thorough treatment of these concepts.
These types of arguments on whether something is or isn't Christian or so prevalent on my FB feed, especially in regards to current politics, even being posted by non-Christians trying to convince their Christian relatives and friends to renounce a policy or politician.
My take would be - this is arguing within a nonsensical framework, and we are prolonging the hopefully last stages of the superstitious demon-haunted world era of humanity.
I'd argue being able to know what you need is actually the critical part of the marriage – standing up for it is only one route – but it's the self awareness (or lack thereof) that seems to drive so many relationships (marriage and business) into the ditch.
So, I think your point really was spot on. Introspection is critical.
This comparison falls apart the moment you're talking about matters of moral, conscience, or basically anything that doesn't have an epistemologically solid answer.
People can debate these issues, arrive at different answers, and still get along at the end of the day.
When those issues are compared to math, where one side is automatically Right and the other side is automatically Wrong and you are Unreasonable if you don't agree... not so much.
A part of being a reasonable person is recognizing this and understanding that the process you went through to arrive at the opinion you hold is not even a little bit comparable to the rigor and certainty of the answer to a child's math problem. The comparison is inherently dishonest.
Unsure why you're being downvoted; this is one of the best comments on the thread (and I remember this story from the last time it was posted).
You might say abuse breeds abuse in that someone who for some reason is playing doormat is emitting pheromones for people who like to trample on others.
This is absolutely true. Perhaps some readers were confused by your metaphorical use of 'pheromones' to mean signalling in general. A great example of this is griefing behavior in MMORPGs (and trolling in general, but in games it's already quantified and thus far easier to measure). Most games implement some sort of safe zone and/or NPC policing function to prevent griefers from hassling new players to the point of wrecking the game, which is the griefers' underlying and often unconscious objective (so as to 'own' the territory of the game space even if this is poisonous to the growth of the player pool).
Denied the ability to pick on newbies, griefers then usually collect in small packs and lurk around entry-exit routes to danger zones (whether from NPCs or territorial conflict) where there's a possibility to target outcoming damaged players or incoming ones pushing up against their skill envelope. Griefers like to think of themselves as apex predators, but typically lack the self-discipline and strategic vision required to organize as such, so more often than not they occupy the same environmental as scavengers such as hyenas, vultures etc.
I haven't kept up with the latest research on this, but I recall that EVE had an economist on staff several years ago and I'd imagine that the larger participants in that market are open to or already working with sociologists, game theorists, and other quantitative social scientists to better understand the dynamics of their virtual ecosystem.
For 'nice' players (in games and in life) who don't comfortably slot into large teams, the usual advice is to be more of an asshole. And while that's partly true, being an armored up lone wolf will only take you so far. Unless the system as a whole is dysfunctional, individual lone wolves are never competitive against anything bigger than a small-medium team. However, lone wolves can team up and be very effective; to do so they (obviously) have to overcome significant trust barriers, but can succeed by maintaining smallish flat structures and growing hierarchies below those.
Indeed, as Mark Manson puts it[1]: "For a relationship to be healthy, both parties need to be able to both give and receive rejection". Eye-opening for me, and explained many of the unhealthy relationships in my life (including employee-employer dynamics).
I found it oftentimes easier to say no without saying reason. The issue for me was that when I state reason, people wanted to negotiate, attempted to "advise" me on how organize my time better and so on and so forth. Overtime (at least against many people) I found it much less draining to simply insist on politely stated no without further explanation.
Maybe I'm off my rocker, but isn't this exactly what "white lies"[1] were invented for?
You don't actually always have to be 100% truthful with everyone. (That will also serve you badly in other social situations, BTW.)
[1] Point being that even if people eventually find out that you did tell them a "white lie", they'll actually usually be very understanding because that's the societal norm and they realize that you were just trying to "spare them" from embarassment/awkwardness/losing face/whatever.
I often seem to find my actions that I judge as selfish or arrogant are the ones that I get respect for.
A lot of timid people are attracted to strong people. You say the things they wish they had the bravery to say, and they respect it. It's aspirational.
I've been using this to great benefit also - require the person to put a decent amount of effort into the idea first. Some people resent you for it, but those that are destined to succeed and are able to make it will keep persevering.
I used to not do this and wasted a lot of time in the process. Do you find it hard to shake the reputation you had from before? I know I do.
"I went from being an accommodating person to an intense asshole "
I have gone through the same process. Maybe it's because I am getting old, meditation or I just don't care anymore, I have slowly learned what's really important to me. I am generally pretty accommodating but for some things I won't negotiate and just say "No" without any further explanation.
This seems to work reasonably well with most people.
I don't really know what I am trying to say but maybe it's to have your priorities figured out and be flexible with unimportant stuff but firm with important stuff. That is, stuff that's important to you, not somebody else.
I agree with you, but I think it's important not to take the bait. If someone is implying you're a rude person for not doing what they want, and you know you're not that, you can simply disregard. What they think of you is their problem and not yours. Always maintain the frame of what you think is right and what is best for you, and do not buy into their frame.
Of course, it gets trickier in different situations for different reasons. But basically, people try to use shaming and emotional blackmail to get what they want, don't let them.
One other thing: I think about the fundamental attribution error / actor-observer bias a lot. You're an asshole because you won't do the thing I want, but when someone else asked me for a thing and I said no, it was because I was busy and etc etc. This dynamic influences so much of what people think about others and themselves.
One method I found works disturbingly well is to have a busy life or cultivate the appearance of a busy life. It's counter-intuitive for some and obvious for others, but people will value you more if you are less available whereas they will treat your time with increasing contempt if you can be reached and interrupted easily.
With this reputation in place, people are much less likely to try to trick you into doing what they want, and more likely to try to get you to do things with them.
You have to be a little careful though. If you don't have much social capital to begin with, it could backfire into being ignored altogether. If you overdo it, it may also be counterproductive.
If you have a strong bias towards accomodating, then the rare instances where you choose a different approach are presumably ones where it is strongly called for. It would make sense that you get respect for taking the right course of action.
Someone who is almost always selfish may find they are the most respected when they accomodate.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.65
Article 16Marriage & Family
High A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.65
SETL
ND
The essay explicitly prioritizes family relationships and advocates for recognizing family obligations as a person's chief duty.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The author explicitly states: 'A man's chief loyalty must be to the woman who has joined her life to his; to the children who call him father.'
He describes how infinite accommodation of strangers caused his wife to wait 'until the dinner was spoiled' and his children to be neglected.
The essay emphasizes gratitude that 'my wife and the children should have borne with me as uncomplainingly as they did.'
Inferences
The author's articulation of family as a primary claim on loyalty reflects recognition that family relationships deserve special protection and priority.
The contrast between family neglect and public accommodation demonstrates that human rights include the right to form and maintain family bonds without sacrifice to external demands.
+0.60
Article 4No Slavery
High A+ F+ P- C+
Editorial
+0.60
SETL
ND
The essay explicitly describes exploitation as a form of servitude and advocates for freedom from unlimited accommodation demands.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The author describes himself as 'a good-natured drudge who might be imposed upon without limit,' equating accommodation to servitude.
He explicitly 'retire[s] from the business of being Everybody's Friend' and works to free himself from others' control of his labor.
The essay uses language of exploitation: customers 'imposing' on his father, people 'tak[ing] and tak[ing] and tak[ing]' without end.
Inferences
The author's decision to establish boundaries against unlimited service reflects recognition that human freedom requires protection from servitude-like exploitation.
By contrasting voluntary, controlled charity with forced, endless accommodation, the author implicitly asserts that dignity prohibits being held in a state of perpetual service.
+0.50
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
High A+ F+ P- C+
Editorial
+0.50
SETL
ND
The essay advocates for fair working conditions and freedom from customer exploitation; it critiques how workers' time and energy are stolen for non-essential demands.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The author describes being 'too often being friendly to the customers at the expense of the house,' a 'common fault in salesmen.'
Customers made endless personal requests: matching goods in New York, arranging theater tickets and ocean liner reservations, purchasing books, collecting bad debts.
The author 'drifted into a business to which... I had never given a thought,' showing lack of choice in work.
Inferences
The author's critique of workplace exploitation and advocacy for fair boundaries reflects commitment to worker rights and just conditions.
The essay implicitly asserts that workers deserve protection against unlimited demands on their labor and the right to work under fair conditions.
+0.45
Article 6Legal Personhood
High A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.45
SETL
ND
The essay advocates for recognition of each person as a full individual deserving respect as a person in their own right.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The author criticizes being identified only as 'Good old Bert'—a reductive label capturing only his utility, not his full personhood.
His colleagues 'did not take me seriously' despite liking him, treating him as an object rather than a person worthy of respect.
The essay emphasizes that 'each of us' possesses an 'irreplaceable fund of hours and weeks and years' deserving personal autonomy and recognition.
Inferences
The author's assertion that he should be recognized as a full person with his own life and identity reflects commitment to the right of recognition as a person.
The critique of being useful but not taken seriously demonstrates that true recognition requires seeing people as ends in themselves, not merely as means.
+0.40
Article 24Rest & Leisure
High A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.40
SETL
ND
The essay explicitly advocates for control over one's time and rest, emphasizing that time and leisure are essential to human well-being.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The author repeatedly emphasizes control over time: 'I am master of my time; it is not wasted wantonly among a thousand thoughtless folks.'
Accommodation prevented rest: 'my office became a kind of rendezvous for people of all sorts who had odd jobs to be attended to.'
The essay asserts: 'time is life itself' and should be protected from wasted expenditure.
Inferences
The author's insistence on controlling one's time reflects commitment to the right to rest, leisure, and freedom from constant demands.
By identifying time as 'life itself,' the author implicitly recognizes that the right to rest and leisure is fundamental to human dignity.
+0.35
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.35
SETL
ND
The essay advocates for recognition of human dignity by critiquing reduction of persons to functional roles.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The author describes being known as 'a good-natured drudge' and 'Good old Bert'—reductive designations that capture only utility, not personhood.
His colleagues 'did not take me seriously' and regarded him as a useful tool rather than a full person.
The author criticizes: 'He is everybody's friend to such an extent that he is a very poor friend to himself.'
Inferences
The author's rejection of being reduced to a single functional role reflects recognition that dignity requires being treated as a whole person.
The critique of being useful but not respected demonstrates that equality in dignity requires recognition of inherent worth beyond instrumental value.
+0.30
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
ND
The essay explicitly discusses personal autonomy and the right to control one's own life and decisions.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The author lacked control over his time: 'my office became a kind of rendezvous for people of all sorts who had odd jobs to be attended to.'
He explicitly resolves: 'I am master of my time; it is not wasted wantonly among a thousand thoughtless folks.'
Inferences
The author's emphasis on time-control and personal autonomy reflects commitment to the right to liberty and self-determination.
The contrast between being a 'public storehouse' and becoming 'master of my time' demonstrates that liberty requires freedom from arbitrary claims on one's life.
+0.25
Article 5No Torture
Medium A+ F+ P- C+
Editorial
+0.25
SETL
ND
The essay implicitly recognizes that exploitation inflicts emotional and psychological harm—a form of degrading treatment.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The author describes his decision-making as a 'bitter ordeal of self-examination' conducted through the night, indicating emotional distress.
His father is portrayed as 'perpetually tired but perpetually smiling,' showing emotional degradation through forced pleasantness despite exhaustion.
The mother's only protest involves sobbing when family savings are consumed, depicting emotional harm from exploitation.
Inferences
The author implicitly recognizes that endless accommodation inflicts emotional suffering and constitutes a form of degrading treatment.
The depiction of the father's forced smile masking tiredness suggests awareness that systematic exploitation damages human dignity through psychological harm.
+0.25
Article 29Duties to Community
Medium A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.25
SETL
ND
The essay advocates for a balanced understanding of duties to community—one that preserves individual rights and boundaries while fulfilling genuine obligations.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The author states he now 'control[s] my charities now; they do not control me' and gives away more to charity than before.
He emphasizes: 'I am still willing to help any man who honestly needs help. But... I no longer allow myself to be sacrificed by the selfish demands of those who are perfectly able to take care of themselves.'
The essay describes strategic, chosen help to 'the young, the sick, and the bereaved' rather than indiscriminate accommodation.
Inferences
The author's balanced approach reflects recognition that individuals have both rights and duties, requiring harmony between self-care and community responsibility.
The distinction between chosen charity to those with genuine need and refusal of demands from the self-sufficient suggests that duties must be exercised thoughtfully, not blindly.
+0.20
PreamblePreamble
Low A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND
The essay implicitly affirms human dignity through critique of being treated as a utility available for public use.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The author asks: 'Who is living your life, anyway? Is it actually yours? Or is it a kind of public storehouse of odd jobs?'
He resolves to stop his life being 'a pile of days and hours put on the counter of the world with a sign inviting every Tom, Dick, and Harry to take one.'
Inferences
The author's assertion of personal agency reflects an implicit commitment to human dignity and self-determination.
The rejection of treating one's life as public property suggests recognition that dignity requires protection from unlimited appropriation by others.
+0.20
Article 25Standard of Living
Medium A+ F- P- C+
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND
The essay illustrates how exploitation and unreasonable demands prevent individuals from achieving adequate living standards for their families.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The family lived in perpetual financial insecurity: 'our family finances were never a nickel ahead' despite constant work.
The author concludes that 'indiscriminate charity, whether one gives money or time—which is life itself—merely pauperizes the recipients.'
The mother had to abandon vacation savings due to the father's financial obligation.
Inferences
The essay implicitly argues that fair treatment and protection from exploitation are necessary for achieving adequate living standards.
The author's observation that unlimited charity creates dependency suggests recognition that dignity requires conditions of fairness and reasonable boundary-setting.
+0.15
Article 12Privacy
Low A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.15
SETL
ND
The essay implicitly values privacy and autonomy over one's personal time and decisions.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The author emphasizes lack of control: office became 'a kind of rendezvous for people of all sorts who had odd jobs to be attended to.'
He asserts: 'I am master of my time; it is not wasted wantonly among a thousand thoughtless folks.'
Inferences
The author's assertion of control over personal time reflects recognition that privacy requires protection from arbitrary claims on one's hours.
The framing of time as 'life itself' suggests that privacy rights extend to the fundamental right to control the use of one's own time.
+0.15
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.15
SETL
+0.09
The essay demonstrates free expression—a personal opinion piece shared without apparent censorship or restriction.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The essay is published on a public blog and shared without apparent editorial restriction.
The author expresses strong personal opinions about accommodation, work ethics, and life philosophy.
Inferences
The existence of this opinion piece itself exemplifies the right to freely express personal views and philosophy.
The WordPress platform's free publishing infrastructure provides structural conditions enabling freedom of expression.
-0.15
Article 22Social Security
Low F- P- C+
Editorial
-0.15
SETL
ND
The essay illustrates the failure of systems to provide adequate living standards, implicitly advocating for better protections.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
The author's family 'were always in debt' despite the father working 'twelve or fifteen hours a day.'
The mother's savings for a family vacation were consumed by an endorsed note, preventing achievement of basic well-being.
The competitor 'Doc Meadows' who merely 'kept a clean store... managed to own a house and have all the other comforts that we yearned for but never enjoyed.'
Inferences
The essay illustrates how exploitation prevents workers from achieving adequate living standards for their families.
The contrast between the father's hard work and poverty versus the competitor's comfort suggests systemic failure to protect workers' rights to adequate standards of living.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 14Asylum
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 15Nationality
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 17Property
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 26Education
Education is mentioned briefly in passing but is not a focus of the essay.
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Not addressed in content.
Structural Channel
What the site does
+0.10
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium A+ F+ C+
Structural
+0.10
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.09
The WordPress platform enables free publication of the author's views without institutional gatekeeping.
ND
PreamblePreamble
Low A+ F+ C+
The essay implicitly affirms human dignity through critique of being treated as a utility available for public use.
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium A+ F+ C+
The essay advocates for recognition of human dignity by critiquing reduction of persons to functional roles.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium A+ F+ C+
The essay explicitly discusses personal autonomy and the right to control one's own life and decisions.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
High A+ F+ P- C+
The essay explicitly describes exploitation as a form of servitude and advocates for freedom from unlimited accommodation demands.
ND
Article 5No Torture
Medium A+ F+ P- C+
The essay implicitly recognizes that exploitation inflicts emotional and psychological harm—a form of degrading treatment.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
High A+ F+ C+
The essay advocates for recognition of each person as a full individual deserving respect as a person in their own right.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 12Privacy
Low A+ F+ C+
The essay implicitly values privacy and autonomy over one's personal time and decisions.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 14Asylum
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 15Nationality
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
High A+ F+ C+
The essay explicitly prioritizes family relationships and advocates for recognizing family obligations as a person's chief duty.
ND
Article 17Property
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 22Social Security
Low F- P- C+
The essay illustrates the failure of systems to provide adequate living standards, implicitly advocating for better protections.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
High A+ F+ P- C+
The essay advocates for fair working conditions and freedom from customer exploitation; it critiques how workers' time and energy are stolen for non-essential demands.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
High A+ F+ C+
The essay explicitly advocates for control over one's time and rest, emphasizing that time and leisure are essential to human well-being.
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
Medium A+ F- P- C+
The essay illustrates how exploitation and unreasonable demands prevent individuals from achieving adequate living standards for their families.
ND
Article 26Education
Education is mentioned briefly in passing but is not a focus of the essay.
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
Not addressed in content.
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
Medium A+ F+ C+
The essay advocates for a balanced understanding of duties to community—one that preserves individual rights and boundaries while fulfilling genuine obligations.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Not addressed in content.
Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.46medium claims
Sources
0.3
Evidence
0.4
Uncertainty
0.5
Purpose
0.8
Propaganda Flags
0techniques detected
Solution Orientation
0.76solution oriented
Reader Agency
0.6
Emotional Tone
solemn
Valence
+0.2
Arousal
0.3
Dominance
0.5
Stakeholder Voice
0.252 perspectives
Speaks: individuals
About: workersfamilycommunityemployers
Temporal Framing
retrospectivelong term
Geographic Scope
national
United States, Midwest
Complexity
moderatelow jargongeneral
Transparency
0.20
✗ Author
Audit Trail
1 entries
2026-02-28 09:40
eval
Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: +0.36 (Moderate positive)
build d1f8d9e+mpqz · deployed 2026-02-28 11:28 UTC · evaluated 2026-02-28 11:41:14 UTC
Support HN HRCB
Each evaluation uses real API credits. HN HRCB runs on donations — no ads, no paywalls.
If you find it useful, please consider helping keep it running.