3 ms·
Something about this argument bothers me. It allows criminals to be victims of "the system". In certain areas the economic machinery has certainly sputtered o
by lujim 11y ago
Something about this argument bothers me. It allows criminals to be victims of "the system". In certain areas the economic machinery has certainly sputtered out, but this question seems loaded to imply that some fat cat banker or politician pushed a button that instantly sucked the jobs out of an otherwise flourishing area. This argument is just a way to inject a well trodden political viewpoint into what might have otherwise been an interesting discussion.
- pelario 11y agoNope, the question is indeed inviting to a political discussion, but is not suggesting any answer. It is you that attribute that intention to the parent comment; I guess to avoid an otherwise interesting political discussion
- lujim 11y ago>"Maybe the question you should ask yourselves, is why you have those. Why are inequalities so high in your country ?" In my experience, anything that follows "Maybe the question you should ask yourself" is usually a statement not a question. Inequality is the cool thing to be frustrated with right now, especially with an election year coming up. Yes there is lots of inequality, yes it sucks, yes it's unfair. As far as blaming every social problem on the 1% or .1% that is where I'm ready to jump off the bandwagon. An interesting discussion would be something like "why did Detroit get left in the dust as globalization took off and what incentives could be used to help the next rust belt city from collapsing into an economic black hole?", or "what affect would offering more attractive small business loans to impoverished areas have?" An uninteresting discussion would be "If it wasn't for inequality we wouldn't have so many problems, our system sucks".