5 ms·

John Tuld from Margin Call movie... So you think we might have put a few people out of business today. That its all for naught. You've been doing that everyday

John Tuld from Margin Call movie... So you think we might have put a few people out of business today. That its all for naught. You've been doing that everyday for almost forty years Sam. And if this is all for naught then so is everything out there. Its just money; its made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It's not wrong. And it's certainly no different today than its ever been. 1637, 1797, 1819, 37, 57, 84, 1901, 07, 29, 1937, 1974, 1987-Jesus, didn't that fuck up me up good-92, 97, 2000 and whatever we want to call this. It's all just the same thing over and over; we can't help ourselves. And you and I can't control it, or stop it, or even slow it. Or even ever-so-slightly alter it. We just react. And we make a lot money if we get it right. And we get left by the side of the side of the road if we get it wrong. And there have always been and there always will be the same percentage of winners and losers. Happy foxes and sad sacks. Fat cats and starving dogs in this world. Yeah, there may be more of us today than there's ever been. But the percentages-they stay exactly the same.

birdyrooster 5y ago
I’m going to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there. What you are describing is a logical fallacy. By redefining winners and losers to be an arbitrary condition instead of a fixed set of attributes (homeless, hungry, lack of class mobility, poor health), you can claim some notion of relativism but it’s not helpful for understanding anything. It’s a bit of circular reasoning.
- remontoire 5y ago
  His whole comment is a quote from the movie
  - birdyrooster 5y ago
    I know it was a quote. I was disagreeing with the sentiment. Why even repeat that? It’s like saying “did you even read the article?”
    - remontoire 5y ago
      You're not disagreeing with them then. You are disagreeing with the point of the quote.
      - birdyrooster 5y ago
        I was quoting Office Space, I didn't literally mean I had a disagreement with PC
- che_shirecat 5y ago
  it's a quote from a movie. the premise being that as long as humans compete with each other for resources, there will be some they take most of the pie, and others that struggle for the remaining scraps. it's more a philosophical take on the human condition. the take is just that - winners and losers is arbitrary because humans will always view their successes and failures in direct comparison with others, regardless of whether from an absolute perspective their general condition or their share of the pie or the degree of wealth equality has improved. it's definitely helpful for understanding the human psyche. calling it circular reasoning misses the point.
  - birdyrooster 5y ago
    Oh I get the point (and I know it’s a quote, which I why I quoted Office Space) but it’s still useless rhetoric.
    - che_shirecat 5y ago
      > "I’m going to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there." Either you didn't realize it was a quote and are lying, or you have serious issues with communicating in the English language. > it’s still useless rhetoric Why?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - birdyrooster 5y ago
        My first sentence, the one you quoted is actually a quote from Office Space. It’s useless rhetoric because after we agree humans will always see winners and losers, there are no further conclusions to draw. Does that mean humans will always expect a certain portion of people to be homeless, hungry, unhealthy, depressed, etc? Or does that mean that even once humans are all homed, fed, heathy and in good spirits that there will be some other metric to decide people are winning or losing life at? This solipsistic relativism can’t be applied in any particular way.
antaviana 5y ago
What I liked best of this scene is how all this truckload of truth was delivered with the guy relaxingly devoring a piece of meat at the office.
- chii 5y ago
  which is what makes it more poignant - it's not dramatic, but as-a-matter-of-factly.

birdyrooster 5y ago

I’m going to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there. What you are describing is a logical fallacy. By redefining winners and losers to be an arbitrary condition instead of a fixed set of attributes (homeless, hungry, lack of class mobility, poor health), you can claim some notion of relativism but it’s not helpful for understanding anything. It’s a bit of circular reasoning.

remontoire 5y ago
His whole comment is a quote from the movie
- birdyrooster 5y ago
  I know it was a quote. I was disagreeing with the sentiment. Why even repeat that? It’s like saying “did you even read the article?”
  - remontoire 5y ago
    You're not disagreeing with them then. You are disagreeing with the point of the quote.
    - birdyrooster 5y ago
      I was quoting Office Space, I didn't literally mean I had a disagreement with PC
che_shirecat 5y ago
it's a quote from a movie. the premise being that as long as humans compete with each other for resources, there will be some they take most of the pie, and others that struggle for the remaining scraps. it's more a philosophical take on the human condition. the take is just that - winners and losers is arbitrary because humans will always view their successes and failures in direct comparison with others, regardless of whether from an absolute perspective their general condition or their share of the pie or the degree of wealth equality has improved. it's definitely helpful for understanding the human psyche. calling it circular reasoning misses the point.
- birdyrooster 5y ago
  Oh I get the point (and I know it’s a quote, which I why I quoted Office Space) but it’s still useless rhetoric.
  - che_shirecat 5y ago
    > "I’m going to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there." Either you didn't realize it was a quote and are lying, or you have serious issues with communicating in the English language. > it’s still useless rhetoric Why?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - birdyrooster 5y ago
      My first sentence, the one you quoted is actually a quote from Office Space. It’s useless rhetoric because after we agree humans will always see winners and losers, there are no further conclusions to draw. Does that mean humans will always expect a certain portion of people to be homeless, hungry, unhealthy, depressed, etc? Or does that mean that even once humans are all homed, fed, heathy and in good spirits that there will be some other metric to decide people are winning or losing life at? This solipsistic relativism can’t be applied in any particular way.

antaviana 5y ago

What I liked best of this scene is how all this truckload of truth was delivered with the guy relaxingly devoring a piece of meat at the office.

chii 5y ago
which is what makes it more poignant - it's not dramatic, but as-a-matter-of-factly.