4 ms·

>Blaming the publishers is not very useful, they are just acting according to their self interest. Blaming the person who mugged you at gunpoint is not very us

by wfo 9y ago

>Blaming the publishers is not very useful, they are just acting according to their self interest. Blaming the person who mugged you at gunpoint is not very useful, he is just acting according to his self interest. Alternatives are great, but it's ridiculous to reject blaming the people who are responsible for and perpetuate the very bad status quo. They could end it, they just choose not to. We can and should simultaneously advocate to strip them of their power while holding them to account for abusing it.

meric 9y ago
At some point, it’s ok to blame the system (e.g. lack of laws) rather than the mugger. You live in a country in civil war, cross the town at night, get mugged, who’s to blame? You, the mugger, the war?
- stestagg 9y ago
  Always the mugger
  - kosievdmerwe 9y ago
    Not sure why this is being debated. Other people (including yourself) could bear part of the blame, but ultimately the mugger decided to do the mugging.
    - andrepd 9y ago
      Is this valid too if the mugger's family hasn't eaten in 3 days? Because it's easy to talk from a cushy home, with a full belly and a trouble-free upbringing.
      - sewer_bird 9y ago
        One can feel sympathy for someone without absolving them. If they're so desperate, then why deny them their moral agency as well?
      - zaarn 9y ago
        They are still to blame for the mugging, even if the reasons are understandable.
- wfo 9y ago
  Yes, huge swaths of ultra desperate people struggling to survive who rob and mug others is definitely analogous to a tiny cabal of ultra powerful, ultra wealthy publishers that could do any number of things but choose to leech millions off the public good. You are introducing desperation to the scenario, which is totally inappropriate. Unless you know of some publishing house executives who are struggling to put food on the table or homeless? Also, are you saying you wouldn't blame the mugger?

by wfo 9y ago

meric 9y ago

At some point, it’s ok to blame the system (e.g. lack of laws) rather than the mugger. You live in a country in civil war, cross the town at night, get mugged, who’s to blame? You, the mugger, the war?

stestagg 9y ago
Always the mugger
- kosievdmerwe 9y ago
  Not sure why this is being debated. Other people (including yourself) could bear part of the blame, but ultimately the mugger decided to do the mugging.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    Is this valid too if the mugger's family hasn't eaten in 3 days? Because it's easy to talk from a cushy home, with a full belly and a trouble-free upbringing.
    - sewer_bird 9y ago
      One can feel sympathy for someone without absolving them. If they're so desperate, then why deny them their moral agency as well?
    - zaarn 9y ago
      They are still to blame for the mugging, even if the reasons are understandable.
wfo 9y ago
Yes, huge swaths of ultra desperate people struggling to survive who rob and mug others is definitely analogous to a tiny cabal of ultra powerful, ultra wealthy publishers that could do any number of things but choose to leech millions off the public good. You are introducing desperation to the scenario, which is totally inappropriate. Unless you know of some publishing house executives who are struggling to put food on the table or homeless? Also, are you saying you wouldn't blame the mugger?