> The quoted rule would have been better stated in terms of frequency, like: Risk becomes a vehicle by which privilege reinforces itself – for the most part, on

> The quoted rule would have been better stated in terms of frequency, like: Risk becomes a vehicle by which privilege reinforces itself – for the most part, only the privileged can take risks, and for the most part, only risk is rewarded. To think the author's statement was intended to apply to every single person past or present is ridiculous. I'd prefer we continue using language the way rational people do, and just chalk refutations like this one up to pedantry. Obviously the author was talking about the general case. The parent commenter's refutation cites one edge case, and on that basis declares the author's statements are untrue. This is a huge time-waster in (almost) every public argument on (nearly) every subject and I wish people (not all people, only those who engage in this pedantry) would stop doing it. To qualify the relative scale of (almost) every single claim or assertion would make (many) articles unreadable (in my opinion) and speech so labored that (many) people would probably prefer to just not engage at all.