4 ms·

> His only fault, perhaps, is being a massive beneficiary of a system that is profoundly and deeply unfair and getting more that way every day, and he's not abl

> His only fault, perhaps, is being a massive beneficiary of a system that is profoundly and deeply unfair and getting more that way every day, and he's not able to see that as something he's at fault for. If some unfair system exists, and you didn't do anything to create it (it existed before you were born), and you don't do anything to make it worse (and maybe occasionally try to make it a little better)... and the system massively benefits you... are you at fault? Why?

majormajor 6y ago
You either contribute to improving it, worsening it, or keeping it the same. In two of those three cases, you are at fault (or continually become more at fault, more precisely, as the ratio of "how much it existed before you" shifts).
- waterhouse 6y ago
  Contribute to keeping it the same? What does that mean? If the system has unfair policies, and you never personally enforce them or advocate for them and occasionally advocate against them, have you contributed to keeping it the same, and are you at fault?
  - majormajor 6y ago
    You don't exist outside of the world, do you? If the most you ever do is "occasionally advocate against unfair policies," you certainly don't get to pat yourself on the back much for helping anything or anybody. If you replace the word fault with "responsibility" or even a more neutral "influence" it's much more obvious, I think. You would clearly have less responsibility than the person advocating for said policies, but more than the person fighting them more vigorously or more effectively. Nobody looks back and says "boy, I'm glad there were all those people who occasionally complained about Windows in the late 90s," they look back and respect and value the people who built alternatives instead.
    - waterhouse 6y ago
      Not getting to pat yourself on the back much for helping is one thing. Being at fault is fundamentally different. We punish people who do bad things. We don't punish people who have neither helped nor done anything bad. We might we wish they had done better, but wishing and enforcing are very distinct mechanisms.

majormajor 6y ago

You either contribute to improving it, worsening it, or keeping it the same. In two of those three cases, you are at fault (or continually become more at fault, more precisely, as the ratio of "how much it existed before you" shifts).

waterhouse 6y ago
Contribute to keeping it the same? What does that mean? If the system has unfair policies, and you never personally enforce them or advocate for them and occasionally advocate against them, have you contributed to keeping it the same, and are you at fault?
- majormajor 6y ago
  You don't exist outside of the world, do you? If the most you ever do is "occasionally advocate against unfair policies," you certainly don't get to pat yourself on the back much for helping anything or anybody. If you replace the word fault with "responsibility" or even a more neutral "influence" it's much more obvious, I think. You would clearly have less responsibility than the person advocating for said policies, but more than the person fighting them more vigorously or more effectively. Nobody looks back and says "boy, I'm glad there were all those people who occasionally complained about Windows in the late 90s," they look back and respect and value the people who built alternatives instead.
  - waterhouse 6y ago
    Not getting to pat yourself on the back much for helping is one thing. Being at fault is fundamentally different. We punish people who do bad things. We don't punish people who have neither helped nor done anything bad. We might we wish they had done better, but wishing and enforcing are very distinct mechanisms.