3 ms·

Look at Ghandi. He was not a millionaire and did a lot of good. In the same way there are poor persons who cause a lot of suffering to others without being ric

Look at Ghandi. He was not a millionaire and did a lot of good. In the same way there are poor persons who cause a lot of suffering to others without being rich. As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people

59percentmore 2mo ago
I'll give you one thing: you're bold to try to spin a comment like this. There's not a sentence here that isn't a falsehood or working in service of one. Ghandi was not poor. He was a trained lawyer with experience working abroad who adopted some practices in solidarity with people who were actually suffering in poverty. Just because he wasn't a millionaire doesn't mean that he hadn't accrued significant social capital, and the influence over economic capital that this represented. His capacity for good was rooted in this dual capital access; he did not necessarily have a similar capacity for evil, because social capital is not fungible in the same way that economic capital is. But without either form of capital, one's reach is commensurately shortened, so no, such a poor person does not have the same capability to "cause a lot of suffering" as someone who is rich. >As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people Astonishingly, wealth inequality has ballooned to the point that the holdings of the top percent or so so dwarf that of the rest of the planet that it overcomes the population disparity.
- argentinian 2mo ago
  Consider human history. You will be able to see that the greatest acts of good and evil were not done by the ultra rich.
  - 59percentmore 2mo ago
    Making a statement like this puts every other in which you appeal to objectivity in question. Where it's not so broad that it says nothing, it's trivially falsifiable. I read it as a passive-aggressive concession from someone who knows that they're wrong but can't admit it.
    - argentinian 2mo ago
      It's not trivially falsifiable, is a fact.

59percentmore 2mo ago

I'll give you one thing: you're bold to try to spin a comment like this. There's not a sentence here that isn't a falsehood or working in service of one. Ghandi was not poor. He was a trained lawyer with experience working abroad who adopted some practices in solidarity with people who were actually suffering in poverty. Just because he wasn't a millionaire doesn't mean that he hadn't accrued significant social capital, and the influence over economic capital that this represented. His capacity for good was rooted in this dual capital access; he did not necessarily have a similar capacity for evil, because social capital is not fungible in the same way that economic capital is. But without either form of capital, one's reach is commensurately shortened, so no, such a poor person does not have the same capability to "cause a lot of suffering" as someone who is rich. >As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people Astonishingly, wealth inequality has ballooned to the point that the holdings of the top percent or so so dwarf that of the rest of the planet that it overcomes the population disparity.

argentinian 2mo ago
Consider human history. You will be able to see that the greatest acts of good and evil were not done by the ultra rich.
- 59percentmore 2mo ago
  Making a statement like this puts every other in which you appeal to objectivity in question. Where it's not so broad that it says nothing, it's trivially falsifiable. I read it as a passive-aggressive concession from someone who knows that they're wrong but can't admit it.
  - argentinian 2mo ago
    It's not trivially falsifiable, is a fact.