I honestly think that what's novel here is the phrasing and a bad twist involving guilt and innocence. Look: the idea that moral corruption can be contagious is

I honestly think that what's novel here is the phrasing and a bad twist involving guilt and innocence. Look: the idea that moral corruption can be contagious is not new at all. We are very inclined to mention it explicitly when talking about stories of children surrounded by moral corruption, specially on troubled childhoods. What's somewhat twisted here to me is the idea that this involves any guilt. And the author says it explicitly: if anger or acquiescense are the only possible responses when being faced with injustice (which I don't totally agree with), how can you put guilt on anyone for not being able to escape the inescapable? It just looks twisted to me, trying to impose moral standards in a situation when you know they are not in reach. The only thing that would be immoral here is trying to pass moral judgement in this situation (under the premises the author gives).