4 ms·
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 ot
by 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 agoOh 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 agoMy 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.