3 ms·

It's far easier to solve individual issues than societal issues. If you, personally, are having trouble with employment (or anything, really), then you, person

It's far easier to solve individual issues than societal issues. If you, personally, are having trouble with employment (or anything, really), then you, personally, with the support of those around you, should do something about it. Realistically your only other option is sitting around waiting for a magic fairy to fix your life, and it just doesn't work that way. But on a societal level, if the employment landscape is changing rapidly it's easy for whole groups to go under in a short period of time. That uncomfortable truth doesn't change the fact that for any individual the best course of action is likely going to be improving themselves rather than hoping the entire world changes around them instead. 20 years on, my hometown is still poor, and I'm not. In another 20 years, the situation is likely to remain the same. Is it insensitive to point that out? I'm not sure. If you'd asked the younger me, I'd tell you that 'sensitivity' was a thing that rich people worry about. The poor are trying to make ends meet, they couldn't give a fuck about ivory tower waffle. Perhaps you try your best and it doesn't work out anyway. Life can be a cruel mistress.

dTal 7y ago
You've almost put your finger on it, but I think you've missed the reason a remark like this is unacceptable. When an individual says to another individual, personally, "you know, coal mining is dead - you should learn to code" - then that is nothing but a helpful suggestion; it's not insensitive or rude. Whatever social problems led to that situation are not your concern, or theirs. It is supposed to be the concern of a politician, however. When a politician 'advises' an entire class of people that way, it implies that they view the problem that affects that entire class as fundamentally not their responsibility to solve. As a person (aspiring to be) in charge, you need to take responsibility for social problems, and that means providing class-based solutions to class-based problems. Suggest individual action as a solution is effectively victim-blaming. An acceptable thing for Biden to have said would be to have mooted the idea of government subsidized retraining initiatives. Other examples include: women need to wear less slutty clothing to avoid rape; poor people need to work harder; racial minorities should avoid mostly-white areas to avoid abuse; etc....
- esotericn 7y ago
  > When a politician 'advises' an entire class of people that way, it implies that they view the problem that affects that entire class as fundamentally not their responsibility to solve. I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head here, however it's not unacceptable to everyone, just a particular group of people (I don't know much about US politics but certainly in Europe that'd be a standard left/right split). A lot of people just don't see that as being the role of government. They might, in a reduced form, roughly subscribe to the idea of welfare as an insurance policy (against crime at a low level, and uprising at the more extreme end of the spectrum), but not as some sort of moral imperative.

dTal 7y ago

You've almost put your finger on it, but I think you've missed the reason a remark like this is unacceptable. When an individual says to another individual, personally, "you know, coal mining is dead - you should learn to code" - then that is nothing but a helpful suggestion; it's not insensitive or rude. Whatever social problems led to that situation are not your concern, or theirs. It is supposed to be the concern of a politician, however. When a politician 'advises' an entire class of people that way, it implies that they view the problem that affects that entire class as fundamentally not their responsibility to solve. As a person (aspiring to be) in charge, you need to take responsibility for social problems, and that means providing class-based solutions to class-based problems. Suggest individual action as a solution is effectively victim-blaming. An acceptable thing for Biden to have said would be to have mooted the idea of government subsidized retraining initiatives. Other examples include: women need to wear less slutty clothing to avoid rape; poor people need to work harder; racial minorities should avoid mostly-white areas to avoid abuse; etc....

esotericn 7y ago
> When a politician 'advises' an entire class of people that way, it implies that they view the problem that affects that entire class as fundamentally not their responsibility to solve. I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head here, however it's not unacceptable to everyone, just a particular group of people (I don't know much about US politics but certainly in Europe that'd be a standard left/right split). A lot of people just don't see that as being the role of government. They might, in a reduced form, roughly subscribe to the idea of welfare as an insurance policy (against crime at a low level, and uprising at the more extreme end of the spectrum), but not as some sort of moral imperative.