4 ms·

The only type of person who will like this kind of quote is someone disproportionally benefiting from the system in an unfair way. Let me tell you absolutely t

The only type of person who will like this kind of quote is someone disproportionally benefiting from the system in an unfair way. Let me tell you absolutely that if such people exist in the system then the system is flawed, unfair and such a person is indeed exploiting the system. Systems can be made fair or unfair, that is what you must derive from the fact that everything is a system. It is pure stupidity to accept that all systems are unfair. This is not true and is nearly an obscene belief. Think about it. The logical consequence of people disproportionally benefiting from the system means someone must be losing. If you must accept this, then you must accept that people working 3 jobs to stay afloat or people in poverty are just part of the system at work. Don't get angry at those facts.

reroute1 7y ago
> Systems can be made fair or unfair, that is what you must derive from the fact that everything is a system. Or conversely, as the OP suggested systems end up that way. Not necessarily designed fairly or unfairly, they can become that way over time. > It is pure stupidity to accept that all systems are unfair. This is not true and is nearly an obscene belief. Where did anyone say that all systems are unfair? Where did anyone say you should just accept the way they are? Those do seem stupid and I don't see where anyone posited those ideas. On the other hand it does seem very useful to understand that unfair systems do exist, how and why they came about. And if you have no control or influence over a system, then you need to accept it. Those are all pretty obvious truths and is what the OP highlighted...
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  This post seems to imply such unfair systems are emergent in nature. Possibly so. But is the system emergent among a group of human beings who are fully aware of the actions they are taking? No. That's like saying global warming is an emergent phenomenon of human society.
  - reroute1 7y ago
    Right, it is emergent among a group of human beings who may or may not be aware of the actions they are taking as is the case with global warming. Although nowadays more and more people are aware of what causes global warming and how they contribute. That also doesn't mean that some people aren't trying to keep the status quo or rig a system. Just that if a system is unfair, that could be something that was not necessarily designed or intended, but happened anyway.
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051363
muzani 7y ago
I mean, frequent rain harms some and benefits some. But you wouldn't get angry at the people who benefit from rain. You'd deal with it, get an umbrella, build a roof, change your plans, and so on. Angry tweets won't dismantle capitalism any more than it would stop the rain. The people who benefit from capitalism didn't invent capitalism. Capitalism might have poverty as a side effect, but the system doesn't need to be dismantled, it needs to be patched. If there's anything we learn from software engineering, it's that destroying something and rebuilding it completely causes more unexpected bugs. Patches can be messy and ugly, but are often the best solution.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  Let me be frank. If you are a plutocrat, you are at fault. You are at fault because you have the ability to redistribute your wealth which you know was unfairly gained. No amount of work by a single person can generate the wealth possessed by the top 0.1%, for someone to be that rich you had to have people work for you and you have to exploit their work and take an unfair share. That is reality. The people who benefit from corruption and theft didn't invent theft or corruption. You don't need to invent something to be morally unjustified in exploiting it. https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocr... "Many economists would have you believe that their field is an objective science. I disagree, and I think that it is equally a tool that humans use to enforce and encode our social and moral preferences and prejudices about status and power, which is why plutocrats like me have always needed to find persuasive stories to tell everyone else about why our relative positions are morally righteous and good for everyone: like, we are indispensable, the job creators, and you are not; like, tax cuts for us create growth, but investments in you will balloon our debt and bankrupt our great country; that we matter; that you don't. For thousands of years, these stories were called divine right. Today, we have trickle-down economics. How obviously, transparently self-serving all of this is. We plutocrats need to see that the United States of America made us, not the other way around; that a thriving middle class is the source of prosperity in capitalist economies, not a consequence of it. And we should never forget that even the best of us in the worst of circumstances are barefoot by the side of a dirt road selling fruit."

reroute1 7y ago

> Systems can be made fair or unfair, that is what you must derive from the fact that everything is a system. Or conversely, as the OP suggested systems end up that way. Not necessarily designed fairly or unfairly, they can become that way over time. > It is pure stupidity to accept that all systems are unfair. This is not true and is nearly an obscene belief. Where did anyone say that all systems are unfair? Where did anyone say you should just accept the way they are? Those do seem stupid and I don't see where anyone posited those ideas. On the other hand it does seem very useful to understand that unfair systems do exist, how and why they came about. And if you have no control or influence over a system, then you need to accept it. Those are all pretty obvious truths and is what the OP highlighted...

crimsonalucard 7y ago
This post seems to imply such unfair systems are emergent in nature. Possibly so. But is the system emergent among a group of human beings who are fully aware of the actions they are taking? No. That's like saying global warming is an emergent phenomenon of human society.
- reroute1 7y ago
  Right, it is emergent among a group of human beings who may or may not be aware of the actions they are taking as is the case with global warming. Although nowadays more and more people are aware of what causes global warming and how they contribute. That also doesn't mean that some people aren't trying to keep the status quo or rig a system. Just that if a system is unfair, that could be something that was not necessarily designed or intended, but happened anyway.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051363

muzani 7y ago

I mean, frequent rain harms some and benefits some. But you wouldn't get angry at the people who benefit from rain. You'd deal with it, get an umbrella, build a roof, change your plans, and so on. Angry tweets won't dismantle capitalism any more than it would stop the rain. The people who benefit from capitalism didn't invent capitalism. Capitalism might have poverty as a side effect, but the system doesn't need to be dismantled, it needs to be patched. If there's anything we learn from software engineering, it's that destroying something and rebuilding it completely causes more unexpected bugs. Patches can be messy and ugly, but are often the best solution.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
Let me be frank. If you are a plutocrat, you are at fault. You are at fault because you have the ability to redistribute your wealth which you know was unfairly gained. No amount of work by a single person can generate the wealth possessed by the top 0.1%, for someone to be that rich you had to have people work for you and you have to exploit their work and take an unfair share. That is reality. The people who benefit from corruption and theft didn't invent theft or corruption. You don't need to invent something to be morally unjustified in exploiting it. https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocr... "Many economists would have you believe that their field is an objective science. I disagree, and I think that it is equally a tool that humans use to enforce and encode our social and moral preferences and prejudices about status and power, which is why plutocrats like me have always needed to find persuasive stories to tell everyone else about why our relative positions are morally righteous and good for everyone: like, we are indispensable, the job creators, and you are not; like, tax cuts for us create growth, but investments in you will balloon our debt and bankrupt our great country; that we matter; that you don't. For thousands of years, these stories were called divine right. Today, we have trickle-down economics. How obviously, transparently self-serving all of this is. We plutocrats need to see that the United States of America made us, not the other way around; that a thriving middle class is the source of prosperity in capitalist economies, not a consequence of it. And we should never forget that even the best of us in the worst of circumstances are barefoot by the side of a dirt road selling fruit."