7 ms·

For the same reason that sheep don't decide what kind of sweater gets made from their wool.

whatshisface 2y ago
I don't think that's a productive attitude. If you were someone's manager, and they had learned that they could get away with a lot under you, there's only so much time you could spend complaining about human nature. Really, it was your responsibility from the beginning. We're like those restaurant owners from Kitchen Nightmares who show up once a week to talk to our own bartender and don't know that the walk-in fridge is 75 degrees F and that there's raw chicken on the ground.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > We're like those restaurant owners from Kitchen Nightmares who show up once a week to talk to our own bartender and don't know that the walk-in fridge is 75 degrees F and that there's raw chicken on the ground. Who's "we" in this sentence? Plenty of us have known about the "raw chicken on the ground" for years and actively try to do something about it. A better question for this discussion is why have you been looking away for so long, and what are you going to do now that you see the problem?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    I don't know the answer to that question generally, but that's the only sense that is productive.
- Rury 2y ago
  Well, that's sort of the thing you're missing... the vast majority of people are not the "manager" or "owner" in this situation. But if they were to take responsibility, it would mean they'd have to replace the current managers who are. So why doesn't that happen? Simply because, and this may be shocking, but some people don't want that to happen, and rather likes how the current money is being spent, and likes the current managers. The core of politics (and its problems) is a matter of disagreements, not incompetence.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    We already have the responsibility for letting this stuff go on, that's the problem. I am also very skeptical that anywhere near a majority would support it if they were aware of it and understood.
    - Rury 2y ago
      Even if the majority of people are in agreement of "we dislike the current people running the government", you still have the problem of agreeing on what to do about it. Some people may want to overthrow current government norms and democracy. Other people don't ever want that, and want to uphold formal structures as is. Some people want to replace leader A with leader B, but others want leader C. Some people want abortion rights, others don't want others to even have that right. Some think topic X is a priority issue, whereas Y is a non-issue, and on and on... All said, politics is always ultimately a matter of disagreement. But you're right in that, if we only could be in complete agreement, things would be resolved rather quickly as there would be no opposition.
      - whatshisface 2y ago
        Making it about the people is how you get disagreement out of agreement. :-)

I don't think that's a productive attitude. If you were someone's manager, and they had learned that they could get away with a lot under you, there's only so much time you could spend complaining about human nature. Really, it was your responsibility from the beginning. We're like those restaurant owners from Kitchen Nightmares who show up once a week to talk to our own bartender and don't know that the walk-in fridge is 75 degrees F and that there's raw chicken on the ground.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Jtsummers 2y ago
> We're like those restaurant owners from Kitchen Nightmares who show up once a week to talk to our own bartender and don't know that the walk-in fridge is 75 degrees F and that there's raw chicken on the ground. Who's "we" in this sentence? Plenty of us have known about the "raw chicken on the ground" for years and actively try to do something about it. A better question for this discussion is why have you been looking away for so long, and what are you going to do now that you see the problem?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- whatshisface 2y ago
  I don't know the answer to that question generally, but that's the only sense that is productive.
Rury 2y ago
Well, that's sort of the thing you're missing... the vast majority of people are not the "manager" or "owner" in this situation. But if they were to take responsibility, it would mean they'd have to replace the current managers who are. So why doesn't that happen? Simply because, and this may be shocking, but some people don't want that to happen, and rather likes how the current money is being spent, and likes the current managers. The core of politics (and its problems) is a matter of disagreements, not incompetence.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- whatshisface 2y ago
  We already have the responsibility for letting this stuff go on, that's the problem. I am also very skeptical that anywhere near a majority would support it if they were aware of it and understood.
  - Rury 2y ago
    Even if the majority of people are in agreement of "we dislike the current people running the government", you still have the problem of agreeing on what to do about it. Some people may want to overthrow current government norms and democracy. Other people don't ever want that, and want to uphold formal structures as is. Some people want to replace leader A with leader B, but others want leader C. Some people want abortion rights, others don't want others to even have that right. Some think topic X is a priority issue, whereas Y is a non-issue, and on and on... All said, politics is always ultimately a matter of disagreement. But you're right in that, if we only could be in complete agreement, things would be resolved rather quickly as there would be no opposition.
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      Making it about the people is how you get disagreement out of agreement. :-)