Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Whenever I see conversations like this, I have to wonder, what is your goal? Are you trying to solve the problem? Or are you trying to find someone to blame?
Because if it’s the latter, then go ahead blame individuals all you like. It’s overly simplistic and ignores the fact that people’s behaviour is shaped by the systems they live under. It’s also completely and utterly useless at actually solving the problem. But by all means, you can waste your time as much as you like, just don’t expect people who actually want to affect change to waste their time humouring such stupidity.
Not sure if you’re actually trying to understand what I wrote, but I’m not trying to find someone to blame - I’ve already found them. I’m not trying to effect change - I’d become a politician or teacher if I wanted to do that. These are just observations.
And it’s interesting that “people who actually want to affect change” wouldn’t want to try to tackle the actual problems. I guess it’s easier to point to single-target big bad entities rather than a more vague entity like…everyone. Also it is easier to pretend people don’t have agency, isn’t it?
I’m not trying to find someone to blame - I’ve already found them.
… Please consider being a serious person.
And it’s interesting that “people who actually want to affect change” wouldn’t want to try to tackle the actual problems.
Wagging your finger at individuals is never, ever going to solve the problem.
Identifying systemic changes, and advocating for them politically, will.
I guess it’s easier to point to single-target big bad entities rather than a more vague entity like…everyone.
Again. You are focusing on blame and pointing fingers. Nobody cares who you want to blame.
Also it is easier to pretend people don’t have agency, isn’t it?
Nowhere has I said that people don’t have agency. I said that people’s behaviour is shaped by the systems they live under, which is a trivially true observation.
So if we want to effect change on a scale large enough to actually make a difference, we will focus on systemic changes.
Whenever I see conversations like this, I have to wonder, what is your goal? Are you trying to solve the problem? Or are you trying to find someone to blame?
Because if it’s the latter, then go ahead blame individuals all you like. It’s overly simplistic and ignores the fact that people’s behaviour is shaped by the systems they live under. It’s also completely and utterly useless at actually solving the problem. But by all means, you can waste your time as much as you like, just don’t expect people who actually want to affect change to waste their time humouring such stupidity.
Not sure if you’re actually trying to understand what I wrote, but I’m not trying to find someone to blame - I’ve already found them. I’m not trying to effect change - I’d become a politician or teacher if I wanted to do that. These are just observations.
And it’s interesting that “people who actually want to affect change” wouldn’t want to try to tackle the actual problems. I guess it’s easier to point to single-target big bad entities rather than a more vague entity like…everyone. Also it is easier to pretend people don’t have agency, isn’t it?
… Please consider being a serious person.
Wagging your finger at individuals is never, ever going to solve the problem.
Identifying systemic changes, and advocating for them politically, will.
Again. You are focusing on blame and pointing fingers. Nobody cares who you want to blame.
Nowhere has I said that people don’t have agency. I said that people’s behaviour is shaped by the systems they live under, which is a trivially true observation.
So if we want to effect change on a scale large enough to actually make a difference, we will focus on systemic changes.
You realize you two are agreeing with each other right lol?
I don’t see how one could really conclude that.