this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
501 points (91.1% liked)
Greentext
4625 readers
835 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"if i can't have it, nobody should have it"
also applies to everyone who opposes progress because they had it hard in life
That's a lot of people. They're a fucking problem.
Well I've had to deal with them my whole life, so you should too.
If I was in power we'd deal with them alright. Forced relocation to Bitterville, with a dictatorial mayor hell bent on fixing nothing.
I kinda get that. Its like trying to be happy for a billionaire who lives in a castle whilst you can barely afford rent.
this doesn't really apply to billionaires, the same people who oppose things like student debt forgiveness will also lick billionaires' boots and present them as the role models of the "american dream"
it's the bitter people who had it hard in life, and think new generations having it easier is something bad, it's unfair, even though as a civilisation we should all strive to make life easier for those who come after us. but no "if i had it bad in life, you have to go through the same, or you're not really [insert whatever group you feel like, man/woman/american/minority]", as if struggle and suffering was a right of passage
Except people having it easier due to progress comes at the cost of nobody, while billionaires having it good comes at great cost to everybody but them.
I'd argue that progress always comes at a cost to something, loss of jobs, rarer to mine minerals, loss in quality to meet demand, etc. But I hear ya
Yea for sure, but the cost-benefit is usually (hopefully) pretty skewed. Like even redistributing wealth from billionaires comes at a 'cost' to the billionaires, but the downside is their bank account number is smaller (which, who cares). I know you're not disagreeing btw, just adding to the discussion.
No no appreciate the perspective, not all bad is net bad