4 ms·

There's how everybody should be treated and there's how everybody is treated. I was pointing out why lowering the standards for the rich would likely lead to b

There's how everybody should be treated and there's how everybody is treated. I was pointing out why lowering the standards for the rich would likely lead to better standards for everyone because we live in a bifurcated society. It would be nice if we didn't, but we do. I disagree that the rich should be treated better than the poor and advocate for helping the masses, not the elite. If making the elite suffer helps the masses then I'm all for it.

tptacek 4y ago
You just one comment ago said "I never said or implied otherwise" when it was suggested that deliberately mistreating people wasn't a fix for the injustice here, but apparently you just forgot the word "yet".
- OnlineGladiator 4y ago
  > why not just skip the first step and go straight to raising the standards for everyone else? I was responding to this part of that comment, meaning I agree it would be better to have the same high standards for everyone. But that's ideally, the question is how do we get there? If we can get there without lowering standards for the rich I'm all for it. I'm not advocating for the correct solution to this because I don't know what it is. I was only responding to what you said: > No, but advocating for the system to deliberately abuse other people to make a point isn't doing anything to correct the injustice; rather, it's (marginally) worsening it. By pointing out that I disagree, I think it would actually make the system better overall when you consider compounding effects.