Anon discovers that life often isn’t all that fair…
Being smart and hardworking can bolster your odds, but your lot in life really boils down to how lucky you are, and how well equipped you are to capitalise on that luck.
Unfortunately the right combination of extreme luckiness and ability to capitalise on it doesn’t come up all that often, so most people simply won’t ever get that lucky break.
life isn’t fair, but this isn’t life. it’s the system put in place by people. chalking it up to life not being fair is complicity.
life isn’t fair that someone may be born with a lifelong disease, or they may get one later. can’t do anything about that. economic fairness is something we can change.
BTW I never understood why she became popular, it wasn’t that interesting or funny… but I have nothing against her capitalizing on an opportunity. she was suddenly put in the spotlight but she hasn’t grifted her way there. doesn’t hurt anyone. good for her. my comment isn’t about her but meritocracy in general.
The economic system is as big apart of my life as the chronic medical issues I was born with. Don’t know how your life functions without regards to the economy. It has been easier to get medical intervention on my medical issues, than to get society to make the economy fair. Human behavior is part of life, these abstract systems we create are a direct result of that.
I’m gonna be honest I don’t know what you’re even trying to say, let alone how it relates to my point. I’m talking about “life isn’t fair” usually being a thought terminating cliché and a poor replacement for questioning causes of unfairness. saying “life isn’t fair” in response to any criticism of the system is no more helpful than saying “it is what it is”, which is the quintessential thought terminating cliché.
my point is life isn’t fair could be accurate regarding chronic illness for example, but it isn’t enough to explain the economic burden it brings on you. we might not have the means to prevent a chronic illness, but whatever medical intervention it requires should not be an economic problem for the person. healthcare must—and can—be free.
I don’t think the two of you actually disagree, I think you’re just using the term ‘life’ differently. You’re making the point that there are parts of life that are manmade and subject to change, like the economy which can and should be changed to help people.
Meanwhile they used the phrase ‘life isn’t fair’ in what they’re saying is a descriptive rather than a prescriptive sense. They don’t think of it as a thought terminating cliche and they don’t oppose reform, they just see it as an accurate and realistic outlook for the time being.
of course extreme luck can be replaced by inherited wealth and daddies’ connections and suddenly we are looking at a super star who would under average room temperature conditions would only make it to local news
Anon discovers that life often isn’t all that fair…
Being smart and hardworking can bolster your odds, but your lot in life really boils down to how lucky you are, and how well equipped you are to capitalise on that luck.
Unfortunately the right combination of extreme luckiness and ability to capitalise on it doesn’t come up all that often, so most people simply won’t ever get that lucky break.
life isn’t fair, but this isn’t life. it’s the system put in place by people. chalking it up to life not being fair is complicity.
life isn’t fair that someone may be born with a lifelong disease, or they may get one later. can’t do anything about that. economic fairness is something we can change.
BTW I never understood why she became popular, it wasn’t that interesting or funny… but I have nothing against her capitalizing on an opportunity. she was suddenly put in the spotlight but she hasn’t grifted her way there. doesn’t hurt anyone. good for her. my comment isn’t about her but meritocracy in general.
The economic system is as big apart of my life as the chronic medical issues I was born with. Don’t know how your life functions without regards to the economy. It has been easier to get medical intervention on my medical issues, than to get society to make the economy fair. Human behavior is part of life, these abstract systems we create are a direct result of that.
I’m gonna be honest I don’t know what you’re even trying to say, let alone how it relates to my point. I’m talking about “life isn’t fair” usually being a thought terminating cliché and a poor replacement for questioning causes of unfairness. saying “life isn’t fair” in response to any criticism of the system is no more helpful than saying “it is what it is”, which is the quintessential thought terminating cliché.
my point is life isn’t fair could be accurate regarding chronic illness for example, but it isn’t enough to explain the economic burden it brings on you. we might not have the means to prevent a chronic illness, but whatever medical intervention it requires should not be an economic problem for the person. healthcare must—and can—be free.
I don’t think the two of you actually disagree, I think you’re just using the term ‘life’ differently. You’re making the point that there are parts of life that are manmade and subject to change, like the economy which can and should be changed to help people. Meanwhile they used the phrase ‘life isn’t fair’ in what they’re saying is a descriptive rather than a prescriptive sense. They don’t think of it as a thought terminating cliche and they don’t oppose reform, they just see it as an accurate and realistic outlook for the time being.
of course extreme luck can be replaced by inherited wealth and daddies’ connections and suddenly we are looking at a super star who would under average room temperature conditions would only make it to local news
Being born into riches is extreme luck.
Or did most of us choose to live on hard difficulty?
(well most of us are probably on medium difficulty, do to the fact that we can post here)
fair enough…