3 ms·

You're perfectly describing capitalism's essence, with a cherry on top, labelling it 'bad'. The point I was aiming for, is that people like what's easy, what's

You're perfectly describing capitalism's essence, with a cherry on top, labelling it 'bad'. The point I was aiming for, is that people like what's easy, what's natural. You're saying 'they're bad'. That's actually the Christian axiom from what I understand, that people are inherently sinful and bad. I'd like to suggest that feeling that way is a dead end. In other words - I actually agree with everything you're saying, minus the 'bad' label. I label it 'I'd do it differently' which's subtle but very important. Labelling what most people around you are good with, bad, is simply going to make you a misanthrone [0] and that'll prevent you from leading the life you want :) The point regarding coping - labelling people bad and good is an extreme simplification used for children. Once you're an adult, it's much more helpful to understand that what another does, you do in other ways, maybe much more subtle, and let go of harsh judgements. Judgements separate people into us vs them, which's what leads to most of the behaviour you're labelling bad in the first place. It's a very subtle point, that most people endlessly miss. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy

coldtea 9y ago
>You're saying 'they're bad'. That's actually the Christian axiom from what I understand, that people are inherently sinful and bad. Never said that "people are inherently sinful and bad". I said that (and I quote): "People that do what works because it brings money in, other considerations be damned, are bad, end of story". Which is a very different thing. >Labelling what most people around you are good with, bad, is simply going to make you a misanthrone Most people aren't profit seekers "other considerations be damned". And if they are, then they are bad -- doesn't even matter if they are the majority. You don't get a free pass on crapping on others because "most do the same". >The point regarding coping - labelling people bad and good is an extreme simplification used for children. Labelling a sad state of things as "natural" is an extreme perversion or an extreme manipulation. Human civilization is not based in whats natural. Some natural things and behaviors are good, others are bad. Civilization is all about making that distinction. >Judgements separate people into us vs them, which's what leads to most of the behaviors you're labelling bad in the first place. You gave me a $2 philosophy (and condescending at that, with the link to "misanthropy" to enlighten me of that "obscure" term), whereas I gave specific examples of behavior. People promoting fear from their media outlets because "it sells". People who lied about emissions in WV's case. Etc. Yes, we should absolutely separate people into "good" and "bad" for such offenses. I don't care if otherwise they are complex characters and "good people", e.g. great with their kids or tender to their adopted a one-legged pet hamster, when their actions hurt society for their benefit (be it money, promotions, esteem from their colleagues, etc).

coldtea 9y ago

>You're saying 'they're bad'. That's actually the Christian axiom from what I understand, that people are inherently sinful and bad. Never said that "people are inherently sinful and bad". I said that (and I quote): "People that do what works because it brings money in, other considerations be damned, are bad, end of story". Which is a very different thing. >Labelling what most people around you are good with, bad, is simply going to make you a misanthrone Most people aren't profit seekers "other considerations be damned". And if they are, then they are bad -- doesn't even matter if they are the majority. You don't get a free pass on crapping on others because "most do the same". >The point regarding coping - labelling people bad and good is an extreme simplification used for children. Labelling a sad state of things as "natural" is an extreme perversion or an extreme manipulation. Human civilization is not based in whats natural. Some natural things and behaviors are good, others are bad. Civilization is all about making that distinction. >Judgements separate people into us vs them, which's what leads to most of the behaviors you're labelling bad in the first place. You gave me a $2 philosophy (and condescending at that, with the link to "misanthropy" to enlighten me of that "obscure" term), whereas I gave specific examples of behavior. People promoting fear from their media outlets because "it sells". People who lied about emissions in WV's case. Etc. Yes, we should absolutely separate people into "good" and "bad" for such offenses. I don't care if otherwise they are complex characters and "good people", e.g. great with their kids or tender to their adopted a one-legged pet hamster, when their actions hurt society for their benefit (be it money, promotions, esteem from their colleagues, etc).