3 ms·

That's the opposite of what the phrase means. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpos

That's the opposite of what the phrase means. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_w... If a system constantly fails to do what it was intended to do, then we should consider that what it does in reality is its true purpose. Basically this is functional structuralism.

kube-system 2y ago
I understand what it means. I think it is a silly maxim, because it is unnecessarily reductive. Employer sponsored healthcare insurance wasn't ever intended to be a good system for providing healthcare to people, it was popularized as a workaround for employers to raise wages during the Stabilization Act of 1942. Everything that has changed since then has been incremental changes for differing reasons. The idea that a huge system like this even has a single "intent" is ridiculous. It is made up of thousands of different actors, each in different situations with different intents and interests.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  Purpose != intent. Besides, no one is saying there is a single intent so refuting that point doesn't exactly a counter.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Colloquially, no, they are synonymous. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purpose https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purpose https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intent https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intent
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      But we aren't talking colloquially, we're talking about within the maxim. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it feels like you're doubling down in order to prove a point.
      - kube-system 2y ago
        The maxim, applied here, is an obtuse oversimplification of the problems with the health insurance system, and the barriers to changing it. Yes, if we could wave a wand and delete the fact that it ever happened, that would be ideal. But the problem is more difficult to solve now, because we have the problem of the health insurance system, and the problem of drastic systematic and economic change.
        kelseyfrog 2y ago
        In my experience, choices to label opposition as either reductive or overly complex are largely rhetorical. They don't pass the validity test. Perhaps we should ask borrow the "magic wand" that seems to exist for every other country. Maybe they can lend us theirs since that's apparently how realistic a system that does not bankrupt people is. Sadly, it doesn't seem equally possible or realistic to build a system where CEO's aren't revenge murdered.
        kube-system 2y ago
        Precisely zero countries have dismantled a 1.6 trillion dollar, 80 year old health insurance system. That's not to say it's impossible to do, or that we shouldn't. But, an economic, political, and social mass of this magnitude doesn't turn on a dime. Other places had the luxury of solving the problem much earlier and on much smaller scales.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    Purpose is intent. Your post here is just sophistry.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      It's not. I'm so sorry, but whoever taught you that was wrong.

kube-system 2y ago

I understand what it means. I think it is a silly maxim, because it is unnecessarily reductive. Employer sponsored healthcare insurance wasn't ever intended to be a good system for providing healthcare to people, it was popularized as a workaround for employers to raise wages during the Stabilization Act of 1942. Everything that has changed since then has been incremental changes for differing reasons. The idea that a huge system like this even has a single "intent" is ridiculous. It is made up of thousands of different actors, each in different situations with different intents and interests.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
Purpose != intent. Besides, no one is saying there is a single intent so refuting that point doesn't exactly a counter.
- kube-system 2y ago
  Colloquially, no, they are synonymous. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purpose https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purpose https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intent https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intent
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    But we aren't talking colloquially, we're talking about within the maxim. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it feels like you're doubling down in order to prove a point.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      The maxim, applied here, is an obtuse oversimplification of the problems with the health insurance system, and the barriers to changing it. Yes, if we could wave a wand and delete the fact that it ever happened, that would be ideal. But the problem is more difficult to solve now, because we have the problem of the health insurance system, and the problem of drastic systematic and economic change.
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        In my experience, choices to label opposition as either reductive or overly complex are largely rhetorical. They don't pass the validity test. Perhaps we should ask borrow the "magic wand" that seems to exist for every other country. Maybe they can lend us theirs since that's apparently how realistic a system that does not bankrupt people is. Sadly, it doesn't seem equally possible or realistic to build a system where CEO's aren't revenge murdered.
        kube-system 2y ago
        Precisely zero countries have dismantled a 1.6 trillion dollar, 80 year old health insurance system. That's not to say it's impossible to do, or that we shouldn't. But, an economic, political, and social mass of this magnitude doesn't turn on a dime. Other places had the luxury of solving the problem much earlier and on much smaller scales.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  Purpose is intent. Your post here is just sophistry.
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    It's not. I'm so sorry, but whoever taught you that was wrong.