3 ms·

The just world fallacy isn't bad because of how it changes your motivation or happiness or anything like that. It's bad because of how it causes you to act towa

by okmjuhb 16y ago

The just world fallacy isn't bad because of how it changes your motivation or happiness or anything like that. It's bad because of how it causes you to act towards those around you. People don't respond to homelessness when they've convinced themselves that homeless people deserve it. "the world sucking is no reason for you to change your attitude one way or the other" is of course absurd. If the world sucks, there's a reason to change it.

anamax 16y ago
> People don't respond to homelessness when they've convinced themselves that homeless people deserve it. Stereotype much? "Deserve" is a loaded term. Homelessness is often a consequence of choices made by the homeless person. For example, SF has both homeless and shelters that go unused. In other words, there are folks who prefer to be homeless to living in those shelters. Is it really unreasonable/wrong/immoral for folks to respond with "okay - I've done enough" wrt those homeless? If it is U/W/I, what do you want said folks to do? Build nicer shelters? Force those homeless into the shelters? Be precise - what will it take for you to be happy with the response to those homeless?
- Qz 16y ago
  You're misinterpreting the sentence. It's not a statement that people (in general) think homeless people deserve it, it's a statement about people who think that.
  - anamax 16y ago
    Actually, I'm inferring that the sentence was written by someone who is assuming the reason why folks don't do as he'd like wrt the homeless and responding to that reason. The reason that I say that he's assuming (in most cases) is that people typically don't explain themselves, they just do. More to the point, that sentence expresses a dissatisfaction with said "do", regardless of reason. Is it beyond the pale to question that dissatisfaction?
    - Qz 16y ago
      I understand what you're saying but it seems like you're looking for a place to pick a particular argument rather than actually responding to the comment. I agree with what was said in the comment, but I don't have a dissatisfaction with how people do or do not respond to homelessness, so I would question the justification for making the inference that the other would -- maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.

by okmjuhb 16y ago

anamax 16y ago

> People don't respond to homelessness when they've convinced themselves that homeless people deserve it. Stereotype much? "Deserve" is a loaded term. Homelessness is often a consequence of choices made by the homeless person. For example, SF has both homeless and shelters that go unused. In other words, there are folks who prefer to be homeless to living in those shelters. Is it really unreasonable/wrong/immoral for folks to respond with "okay - I've done enough" wrt those homeless? If it is U/W/I, what do you want said folks to do? Build nicer shelters? Force those homeless into the shelters? Be precise - what will it take for you to be happy with the response to those homeless?

Qz 16y ago
You're misinterpreting the sentence. It's not a statement that people (in general) think homeless people deserve it, it's a statement about people who think that.
- anamax 16y ago
  Actually, I'm inferring that the sentence was written by someone who is assuming the reason why folks don't do as he'd like wrt the homeless and responding to that reason. The reason that I say that he's assuming (in most cases) is that people typically don't explain themselves, they just do. More to the point, that sentence expresses a dissatisfaction with said "do", regardless of reason. Is it beyond the pale to question that dissatisfaction?
  - Qz 16y ago
    I understand what you're saying but it seems like you're looking for a place to pick a particular argument rather than actually responding to the comment. I agree with what was said in the comment, but I don't have a dissatisfaction with how people do or do not respond to homelessness, so I would question the justification for making the inference that the other would -- maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.