4 ms·
> and they're the ones to blame, because they're responsible for protecting consumers from bad companies. in your example they’re both bad—both the original ag
by toofy 2y ago
> and they're the ones to blame, because they're responsible for protecting consumers from bad companies.
in your example they’re both bad—both the original aggressor and the one refusing to enforce against that aggressor.
we need to mitigate against this desire to find The One thing to blame. By their very nature complicated situations will have many problems, rarely simply one. we need to remember this so we don’t accidentally stifle conversations by saying “No! It’s this other thing! Not what you said!” we need to recognize this when we find ourselves falling into this trap.
keep in mind, in your scenario, if the elected representative were to enforce against the aggressor, the aggressor would go to jail because their actions are bad—-this tells us that no, it isn’t only the elected person. Both of the parties in your scenario are actively making the situation worse.
it’s both. they both deserve our derision.
- tekknik 2y agoif we want to point fingers then I certainly have my targets but what good will that do? you’ll piss off one side, promote the other, and increase the divide for both. another solution, actually boycott immorality. morality was pushed from society not so long ago, at least in the US, and what you see is the result. why wouldn’t you follow the letter of the law and screw over large swaths of people if it’s legal?
- CRConrad 2y ago[flagged]
- throw10920 2y ago> mistaking morality for having anything to do with whom you are or are not allowed to fuck > Except of course kids and in general people who don't want you to There's no self-consistent system of morality (that does not involve religion) that simultaneously supports all of these positions. What religious morality are you using?
- CRConrad 2y ago[flagged]
- throw10920 2y agoSorry, yes, I agree - both the evildoers, and figures of authority that enable their behavior, deserve scorn and derision. I didn't mean to say that entities actually doing bad things don't deserve shame. The point that I'm trying to make is that, while evildoers will always exist, we don't have very much agency over their actions. You don't have very many options over the actions of a bad company (or person) - but you do have the ability to hold your representatives accountable and protest and vote against them if they don't make good laws and enforce them. So, even though evil companies/people should be shunned, at the very least we know that there's always going to be some of them around - but our representatives are ostensibly acting in our bests interests, and have more responsibility, power, and accountability than the bad actors, so we should focus on them instead. That is - the same amount of energy applied to our representatives will do far more good than applied to bad companies.