No no you don’t understand. It’s always the people with the least amount of economic power who are responsible for everything!
Yea but there’s so many of them! They must be getting controlled by some imaginary ruling class, or something
Exactly. They’re simultaneously responsible and irresponsible.
The only dangerous minority is the rich.
And the claw people
I mean yeah, but how is this a shower thought?
I thought about it in the shower
It’s not really it’s just Lemmy being Lemmy
Is in the US.
One of the most heavily propagandized cultures in the world and most of the people in it would swear that they don’t fall for propaganda or, even more ridiculous, that there isn’t any to fall for.
What I mean is here in the US we simp for the rich and hate the poor, therefore OP’s post really is nothing but a shower thought.
Seeing the downvotes I think people didn’t get it. Maybe that fancy European Education isn’t as good as y’all think it is 🤣
Yes I’m agreeing with you. People don’t love their oppressors for no reason, they’re culturally influenced to do so. The US is a pretty extreme example of it. Which is why it’s a shower thought to Americans; it requires a detached perspective to escape cultural preconceptions.
How exactly is this a shower thought? (I agree by the way, but how?)
Yeah, this dude is using his shower as his political soapboax
ArseAssassin would never. How dare you accuse ArseAssassin of such things.
I don’t think I’ve seen a legitimate shower thought on Lemmy ShowerThoughts.
I mean, who doesn’t think the dynamics of the society and power structures of the system and the injustice of it all during their showers? I personally find myself thinking about these, almost exclusively, on my showers. Is it an age thing, maybe?
Also one of the aspects of fascism
The enemy or ‘other’ is both simultaneously weak and unworthy and should be defeated … and powerful and oppressive and is the cause of all problems.
That’s not just fascism, that’s any time people villify an enemy. That is said by both major US parties.
I keep thinking about that, and I keep coming back to how the ones being lied to will double down on “but the ____ actually are very powerful! That’s why they’ve taken so much for themselves! That’s why they have so many protections!”
I’ve had a conversation like that.
“By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.” - Umberto Eco
“If you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize”
— Voltaire
"Children with cancer rule the world "
- Voltaire
I don’t think that holds true quite as much today as it did back when Voltaire said it. He was calling out authoritarian structures like the christian church if I remember correctly. While certainly still true in totalitarian systems like dictatorships, it’s a somewhat different situation in democracies for example. In a democracy you are generally allowed to criticize anyone. However, powerful entities like big corporations and the very rich might still abuse the system to sue you into oblivion.
Also this quote gets misused quite often by people who do not understand the difference between hate speech and criticism and by people who think being called out and criticized for their words is the same as being “not allowed to criticized” or silenced.
Many of the weak and vulnerable are responsible for putting the rich and powerful into power though. Power is entirely a social construct. Bit of a paradox but that’s the way it is.
I think the white is referring to minorities being scapegoated, though. While absolutely some people vote against their best interests, they often don’t have the numbers to make change themselves (eg, trans and NB people are maybe 1% of the population but getting severely attacked right now) or the system is constantly trying to screw them over (eg, black people are a sizable chunk of the population, but there’s countless efforts to restrict their ability to vote and keep them poor).
The white?
Ahaha I don’t even know what that word was supposed to be and how it ended up as “white”. I meant to say “the OP”.
Lol np buddy
Oh like minority scapegoats. In that case disregard what I said.
Well it’s really not that simple. I assume you’re referring to things like climate change and privacy concerns and general de-evolution of government.
Just to boil down a very complex subject into a lazy comment:
Let’s take climate change for instance. Do corporations and government do almost nothing to curb climate change? Yes. Do they actively lie to people about climate change? Yes.
Does the public still know that climate change is a real thing? At least some of them.
Do a ridiculous proportion of people still buy gas-guzzling SUVs and plastic water bottles and use plastic bags at the grocery store unnecessarily? Yes.
Do some people have full access to the information to educate themselves very quickly on the science, and yet choose to ignore that and instead actually actively promote what they want to believe instead? Absolutely
The reality is that “blame” is seldom simple and we all carry some amount of responsibility.
Personally I view this as a sliding scale. And while I do take personal responsibility in driving an efficient vehicle and refusing plastic bags and bottles (even though people look at me like some kind of crazy hippie and mock me accordingly), I also refuse to live in a yurt in the forest. When more people move down the scale toward me, it will make it easier for me to move even further down the scale.
Do a ridiculous proportion of people still buy gas-guzzling SUVs and plastic water bottles and use plastic bags at the grocery store unnecessarily? Yes
It’s not that this doesn’t matter, it does. But almost every time it’s mentioned is alongside industrial climate impacts as if they were at all in a similar scale.
They aren’t even close. People doing the ‘well actually’ thing for individual climate impacts are inadvertently being patsies for corporations to continue to deflect scrutiny away from the absolutely ridiculous levels of climate impacts they have. And while consumers are trying to move to metal straws, corporations have basically not even started trying to address low hanging fruit ways to mitigate climate change, let alone anything slightly tricky.
Yes, but expecting corporations to do it on their own is silly. They operate in a competitive environment so game theory should tell us what’s going to usually happen. The laws and regulations exist, and a lot more are needed, but it’s also not as simple because costs of enforcement also range from inexpensive to infeasible. In the end, it’s people making self-interested decisions, whether on behalf of themselves or on behalf of corporations. I don’t know of any easy solutions - my feeling is that those don’t exist - so the best bet is to steer society towards better and more effective politics. More distributed and less concentrated power structures, checks and balances, enforcement, novel, effective, and efficient systems through science based analysis, as well as lots of trials and errors and fast iterative improvements based on rapid feedback loops. In short, the world nowadays moves faster than the current government systems and it’s a losing battle until governing adaptability can increase in speed.
What is the “‘well actually’ thing”? Claiming to correct something that’s wrong? Is that not allowed?
People doing the ‘well actually’ thing for individual climate impacts are inadvertently being patsies for corporations to continue to deflect scrutiny
No one is doing that. I could very easily just say that you’re just doing the opposite. That is, deflecting personal responsibility from individuals and just blaming corporations. It’s very easy to just lean back and blame corporations for your choices but the reality is that they simply couldn’t sell this bullshit if individuals weren’t buying them.
And in the same turn, consumers can’t buy a product that doesn’t exist. Until more environmentally friendly products are on the market made by the producers, consumers don’t have a real choice, abstention is not a viable choice.
I still need food, I require the ability to move those groceries from the shop to my car to my house, but if no one produces an environmentally friendly way to do so then I’m at the mercy of the plastic bags, bottles, containers, and wrapping I’ve been provided.
Just like we couldn’t use unleaded gasoline until they started making unleaded gasoline.
Just like we can’t start using renuable energy until they start making renuable energy.
Just like we can’t recycle our waste because we don’t have the infrastructure to recycle our waste.
Just like we can’t take mass transport that hasn’t been built, or use green energy infrastructure that doesn’t exist, or buy products without plastic that don’t exist.
The idea that there is only two options: do nothing or do 100 %, is a comfort zone. People who argue for personal responsibility argue that everyone should do as much as they can.
And those that argue for corporate and government responsibility do too, with the addition that they are smart enough to recognise personal responsibility isn’t enough and isn’t possible at scale without systemic change.
It’s not that you’re wrong, it’s that you’re wasting your breath preaching to a choir that has additional comprehension.
I require the ability to move those groceries from the shop to my car to my house, but if no one produces an environmentally friendly way to do so then I’m at the mercy of the plastic bags, bottles, containers, and wrapping I’ve been provided.
Bruh have you never heard of reusable bags? Made of cloth? Or even just bringing your plastic bags back to the store?
You’re right about most of these things, but those aren’t the types of things I’m referring to.
Bruh have you heard of packaging? Go buy a packet of chips in something that isn’t plastic, good luck purchasing those and toting them out in your reusable bag with that handful of sour cream, and pocket full of frozen peas.
those aren’t the types of things I’m referring to.
And those that argue for corporate and government responsibility do the things you are referring to, with the addition that they are smart enough to recognise personal responsibility isn’t enough and isn’t possible at scale without systemic change.
It’s not that you’re wrong, it’s that you’re wasting your breath preaching to a choir that has additional comprehension.
I get your point and it’s fair. Only those with the power to shift opinion can be held responsible in 2023. The consolidation of power and bullhorn should not be taken for granted. People are just people. Trillions are spent into making their decisions for them. You missed the forest for the trees in OPs sentiment imho.
Only those with the power to shift opinion can be held responsible in 2023
We all have that power.
You missed the forest for the trees in OPs sentiment imho.
I didn’t miss anything, I just disagree.
You do NOT have the power to change minds that e.g. a Koch brother has. That’s not an opinion.
Sorry to say, but many can barely afford rent and the bills, let alone even imagine trying to go out of their way to fix the climate.
Buy an electric car you say? Hell, can’t even afford a new tire for the old car to get to work, you gotta be out of your mind to think poor people can afford to buy a new EV because fOSsiL FUeL bAd…
Yes, clearly fossil fuel is bad, but how you expect the vast number of people living week to week and can barely afford new shoes to buy an EV?
It’s not a choice to live in poverty when the billionaires literally milk most of the population of every penny they can get away with while not even paying their employees a fair living wage.
Sorry to say, but many can barely afford rent and the bills, let alone even imagine trying to go out of their way to fix the climate.
There are many things you can do to “fix the climate” while not spending more money. Often times it even costs less money.
Buy an electric car you say?
No I did not say. But you could buy something that’s NOT unnecessarily large and inefficient, and it would SAVE you money, but many poor people still seem to find money for gas guzzling trucks and SUVs.
You could also ride a bike or ebikes or any number of new e-mobility solutions, or even use the 2 feet you were born with (depending on your exact circumstances).
It’s a pretty incredible trick to convince people that those who, demonstrably, have the least power in society are responsible for all of its problems. What’s that thing about how there has to be an enemy, and that enemy has to simultaneously be weak, wretched and inferior but also strong enough to pose a threat that justifies an authoritarian response? I forget who tends to do that…
Not always. Half of these putzes openly fight to protect the system because they benefit from exploiting their neighbors, too.
EDIT: Here they come right now lol
Money is power. The people with the most money have the most power and therefore bear the most responsibility for the way things are
Well, yeah.
It’s not the powerless that made things how they are, it’s the powerful that shape the world.
It’s also worth noting that when you’re powerful but don’t have the votes it takes to do a thing you want, the shortest path to getting those votes is unifying people around being mad at some sort of scapegoat.
This is why fascism looks the way it does
-
it emerges from a democracy in some sort of crisis
-
it’s always that elites (a voting minority of powerful interests) need political support
-
the way they always get it is by focusing anger on a scapegoat, with promises to punish them
-
Only a Death-Eater uses absolutes.
- Gandalf or some shit
Currently watching Lord of the Harry Witcher right now and can confirm this.
Let us examine the couch movers analogy.
A) If two people, A and B, who can lift 25 lb move a 50 lb couch, and A does not try 100%, whose fault is is that couch does not get moved?
B) If A can lift 20 lb and B 30 lb, and A does not give 100%, whose fault is it then?
C) If A can lift 30 lb and B 20 lb, and A does not give 100%, whose fault is it then?
D) What if both can lift 20 lb?
E) What if A can lift 100 lb and B can lift 20 lb?
F) What if A can lift 20 lb and B can lift 100 lb?
G) What if A and B can both lift 100 lb?
I find it interesting that whose fault seemingly changes even if it is always assumed A is not giving 100% in all cases.
I think where this analogy falls short is that in reality it gets assumed everyone can lift the same if they just would give 100 %. And therefore one person always gets the blame since they are seemingly not giving enough.
Otherwise known as bootstraps.
The thing assholes always tell you they pulled themselves up by, conveniently ignoring their rich, connected family and friends that was the biggest factor in their success.
There’s also a difference between fault, responsibility, and ability to do something. They’re interrelated, but they’re not equivalent. If A is able to move 100 pounds, but not obligated to do so and not trying then A is able, but not responsible and not at fault. If A can only lift 20 pounds, works as a mover and gives their best effort then A is unable to move the couch, responsible for moving the couch, but not at fault as they’ve done everything they can do to move the couch. I could go on but my point stands: it’s a weak, reductive metaphor.
Seems more like one person who could lift the couch one handed is sitting on it yelling at the person who can’t lift it by themselves
Not necessarily. I think that lying requires intent. Someone could tell me something verifiably false without lying because they truly believe it to be true.
Ok, so you’re being lied to by proxy
I’m gonna have to steal that term for my own use
It’s not a matter of responsibility.
The rich and powerful won’t safe the world. If we don’t want to live in a world with so many natural desasters that there is no farming and only synthetic food, then things have to change.
The opposite of the rich and powerful are not the weak and vulnerable but almost everybody. It’s OK to let things happen but it’s also possible to change everything, maybe even in a week or two.
