deleted by creator
Because poverty totally happens because people are dumb, amirite. It’s always a matter of personal responsibility. We live in a just world.
Edit: I thought “we live in a just world” was self aware enough to read as parody. Alternatively, maybe people get that it’s parody and are downvoting it for that reason, which is much, much sadder.
Don’t feel bad.
Lemmy has become extremely tone deaf and if you say anything even slightly nuanced everyone will choose to believe the worst possible version of what you could’ve meant.
I think the new math is for dealing with this? Basically all of school is self-defence class now. Maybe it always was.
Edit: have an up vote
I don’t think school is for self defense. It was explicitly designed originally to mould the peasant class into a working class that would be useful to industrialists. It has always favoured rote obedience over actual understanding and critical thinking. In that sense it is very much about getting us to lower our natural defences against domination.
deleted by creator
Yes, it is in fact so wrong that it is the name of a classic fallacy, the “just world fallacy”, which the op comment had fallen into. I was attempting parody, but apparently it wasn’t on the nose enough.
deleted by creator
I don’t understand, do you think I was being sincere? Did you read the edit? I am genuinely curious what you think about this.
It would be unfair for my landlord not to get 90% of my paycheck. He deserves it, because reasons.
He was smart enough to get born back when houses and land were cheap after all. You can’t put a price on that kind of foresight
You overestimate the rentier class. They aren’t the boomers that made “good choices” when housing was cheap. They are megacorporations and the heirs to centuries-old fortunes. The later never having to make any “good choice” ever.
Like everything else that’s useful in life and not taught in schools, the subject required here is found in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. It’s called Bistromathics, the first principle of which is that of nonabsoluteness:
The first nonabsolute number is the number of people for whom the table is reserved. This will vary during the course of the first three telephone calls to the restaurant, and then bear no apparent relation to the number of people who actually turn up, or to the number of people who subsequently join them after the show/match/party/gig, or to the number of people who leave when they see who else has turned up.
The second nonabsolute number is the given time of arrival, which is now known to be one of those most bizarre of mathematical concepts, a recipriversexclusion, a number whose existence can only be defined as being anything other than itself. In other words, the given time of arrival is the one moment of time at which it is impossible that any member of the party will arrive. Recipriversexclusions now play a vital part in many branches of maths, including statistics and accountancy and also form the basic equations used to engineer the Somebody Else’s Problem field.
The third and most mysterious piece of nonabsoluteness of all lies in the relationship between the number of items on the bill, the cost of each item, the number of people at the table and what they are each prepared to pay for. (The number of people who have actually brought any money is only a subphenomenon in this field.)
Simply apply this principle to your paycheck, taking into account that there is a drunk version of you ordering random shit you don’t need on Amazon or getting Taco Bell delivered at 1am, and off you go.
You could ascribe this to poor spending habits, or you could go with the more pressing reason which is cost of living expenses and debts. Medical, student, housing, etc.
I would have thought school maths would have prepared you perfectly for life. In school you learned it with 18 apples, which is clearly to much for a single person. In life you learn in with a paycheck of $500, which is clearly too much for a single person.
