4 ms·

https://archive.is/m1iai https://archive.is/m1iai It seems to be the usual things, education, understanding and knowledge of opportunities, risky behavior, and

https://archive.is/m1iai https://archive.is/m1iai It seems to be the usual things, education, understanding and knowledge of opportunities, risky behavior, and blind trust in the system waiting for it to live a person up rather than them having to lift themselves up.

Clent 4y ago
This thinking is a major cause. By blaming the impoverished one can justify doing nothing.
- prottog 4y ago
  By blaming the system one can justify doing anything, often without having to prove the efficacy of anything.
  - MrDrDr 4y ago
    I agree with both sides on this point. Responsibility lies with the individual AND the system (society). Edwards Deming said "A bad system will beat a good person every time", but I think history has shown exceptional people can overcome bad systems. The problem is most people (by definition) are not exceptional. There is a persuasive lecture given by Darren McGarvey that makes this point more eloquently: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001g2zf https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001g2zf
thomastjeffery 4y ago
It is much more straightforward to illustrate that an individual is failing a system than it is to illustrate the system itself failing the individual. This is because a system sets the very problem domain for a person to "fail". By virtue of being a system, it is trivial to point to it and say "where" and "how" the person is failing inside it. People are not so easy to describe. A person is not a simple system. Their needs are not so easy to point at and say "where" and "how" a given system has failed them. Each person is unique, and there are hundreds of millions of us all interacting with one system. But that complexity is in everything you are asking of people here: What's does it mean to "lift yourself up"? What are the circumstances for "risky behavior", and are there really better options? Is the behavior a problem or result? These questions are all fraught with complexity, because people have complicated needs and complicated circumstances. What we really need is to set a new problem domain: the needs of each person. But suddenly this becomes some vain moral debate: isn't it selfish? It is. So is a system. But what if a person's needs are to be taken care of without having to work hard themselves? Isn't that unfair? It is. So is a system. Our system demands we ignore such edge cases, and wave them off as moral failings: the person's fault: but what gives our system the right to say so? After all, this is just a system: it isn't God! We made the damn thing! It doesn't get to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Yet we let it do just that with every person every day.

Clent 4y ago

This thinking is a major cause. By blaming the impoverished one can justify doing nothing.

prottog 4y ago
By blaming the system one can justify doing anything, often without having to prove the efficacy of anything.
- MrDrDr 4y ago
  I agree with both sides on this point. Responsibility lies with the individual AND the system (society). Edwards Deming said "A bad system will beat a good person every time", but I think history has shown exceptional people can overcome bad systems. The problem is most people (by definition) are not exceptional. There is a persuasive lecture given by Darren McGarvey that makes this point more eloquently: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001g2zf https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001g2zf

thomastjeffery 4y ago

It is much more straightforward to illustrate that an individual is failing a system than it is to illustrate the system itself failing the individual. This is because a system sets the very problem domain for a person to "fail". By virtue of being a system, it is trivial to point to it and say "where" and "how" the person is failing inside it. People are not so easy to describe. A person is not a simple system. Their needs are not so easy to point at and say "where" and "how" a given system has failed them. Each person is unique, and there are hundreds of millions of us all interacting with one system. But that complexity is in everything you are asking of people here: What's does it mean to "lift yourself up"? What are the circumstances for "risky behavior", and are there really better options? Is the behavior a problem or result? These questions are all fraught with complexity, because people have complicated needs and complicated circumstances. What we really need is to set a new problem domain: the needs of each person. But suddenly this becomes some vain moral debate: isn't it selfish? It is. So is a system. But what if a person's needs are to be taken care of without having to work hard themselves? Isn't that unfair? It is. So is a system. Our system demands we ignore such edge cases, and wave them off as moral failings: the person's fault: but what gives our system the right to say so? After all, this is just a system: it isn't God! We made the damn thing! It doesn't get to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Yet we let it do just that with every person every day.