529
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Speculater@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And those of us who have it relatively easy, have to live with the guilt of telling all our family members no all the fucking time.

[-] BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

If you’re family is constantly asking for money then they are shitty.

[-] yokonzo@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

That’s a pretty big blanket sentiment, I have some family who would absolutely do this but some of them literally have no other options, it sucks but it’s how life is

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It depends on why they’re asking. If they’re asking because they’re irresponsible, that’s one thing. If they’re asking because they are legitimately struggling against systemic issues, then it’s another.

Life is a lot more complicated than you’re implying, and family should be there to support each other.

Then again, so should society in general. Life should be challenging, but it shouldn’t be so hard that it’s impossible for so many people just to get by.

[-] thenerdjournals@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

May I ask why you think life should be challenging?

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Keep in mind that I said “challenging” not “difficult”.

But a challenge gives a person something to strive for. Motivation to be something greater. But I also believe the people should have all the support and encouragement they need to meet that challenge as well as all of the support they need should they fail— even if they fail repeatedly.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Because a system where people can avoid working would be bad for the economy. The government needs people to be able to pay a lot of taxes to afford things like the military. The whole system would collapse if some people could choose to have an easy life with a stable low income and not work

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 7 points 1 year ago

The economy exists to serve the people who live in it, not the other way around. If it's challenging just to live, the economy has failed, and if it's that way on purpose, it's just slavery with extra steps.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If your economy can't provide for national defense, protecting the environment, etc. then it's a failure

Just look at aid to Ukraine

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/01/us-eclipses-all-other-nations-in-military-aid-to-ukraine/

The United States has the largest economy, largest military and gives more to Ukraine in absolute terms. Even though certain nations like the Baltics give more as a percentage of their GDP, the US just has more to give and has a larger absolute help to Ukraine. This is because the US has a larger economy and tax base. It's not just affecting the citizens of the US, but also the entire world.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

If something is challenging, then by definition, a substantial number of people who attempt it will fail. If you want life itself to be challenging, you are by necessity advocating for many people who attempt it to fail despite their best efforts. I'm not sure what exactly failing at life means in this context--probably something like not having adequate food, shelter, or medical care. What you seem to be saying is that denying people the necessities of life is a good thing if scares the rest of the population into maximizing their economic output. Squeezing the most possible work out of people who have no choice but to work is literally the value proposition of slavery.

The fact that you can use slave labor to do useful things, like defend Ukraine, cannot justify it. And I don't even know what you're getting at with "protecting the environment", because the economic system that makes people live in terror of losing their jobs is the same one that's actively making the planet uninhabitable.

Did it ever even occur to you that motivating people through fear might not even be the most effective way to get useful labor out of them? Or that even if it was, life is about more than economic output?

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, but "failing" doesn't mean you die. Failing means you rely on government programs.

probably something like not having adequate food, shelter, or medical care

My ex was a failure at life and she never had problems getting any of those things in California. You get a lot of benefits being under the poverty line

[-] candyman337@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

Sometimes that irresponsibility is a systemic issue. Low income home life leads to lack of education, drug addiction, crime, etc.

Some people wouldn't know what to do with money even if they had it.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

That’s right on all points.

And a society as rich and advanced as ours should be there to support people in all cases. In the highest of highs, to help them responsibly manage their money, and the lowest of lows to help put their lives back together when they fail.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

Looking down on poor people sure makes you feel better about yourself, doesn't it?

[-] Drusas@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

That is basically the opposite of what the person you replied to was saying. S/he's saying it's not their fault because of systemic problems.

[-] candyman337@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago
[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

Some people wouldn’t know what to do with money even if they had it.

OK, I'm probably misinterpreting your intent, but I don't know how to read that in any other way than saying some poor people aren't worth helping because they lack a skill set that wealthier people have. I find it pretty crazy that being bad at managing money is often seen as a moral failing even though it's a skill that nobody is born with and isn't even taught in schools (for the most part).

[-] candyman337@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, you are misinterpreting my intent, what you're saying is exactly my point. Wealthier people have more access to education on these topics because it's usually not free, additionally usually someone of low income who is a parent will also not have that knowledge to give their children

Literally I'm saying the exact opposite of what you're assuming, if they don't get the proper help then they can't help themselves, sometimes

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago
[-] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

This is an ignorant take. It can be correct in some cases, but oversimplifying and making assumptions like that is entirely devoid of rational thinking.

[-] Poiar@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
529 points (100.0% liked)

News

23311 readers
3158 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS