You are reading a single comment by @spiderpie and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • Well my point is that broadly for one person to succeed, there are inevitably a large number who have to fail.

  • Is that so?

    Define "fail"?

    Am I a "fail" for getting working tax credits...? (hopefully not needed once I finish my OU degree which in England has gotten massively more expensive decreasing social mobility putting it out of reach of some...)?

    Is somebody a "fail" for being able to hold down a min wage job and getting priced out by fuckers with more money than one could possible need...?

    Society is not a 0 sum game when there still is enough food and money for all and it's badly divided.

  • Well my point is that broadly for one person to succeed, there are inevitably a large number who have to fail.

    This is inaccurate. We don't live in a zero-sum game.

  • Well my point is that broadly for one person to succeed, there are inevitably a large number who have to fail.

    But you are choosing extreme phrases to make everything sound more dramatic.

    If you used the national lottery as a simple example. Someone wins the jackpot. They succeed. All those who didn't fail. But that failer is fairly minimal. Most people would probably describe that as not winning.

    If the majority of people lived on enough to provide basic essentials, plus some luxuries/treats, and access to social services why does it really matter how the 1% live? And more to the point does that constitute failer?

    (assuming we accept your point is correct in the first place)

About

Avatar for spiderpie @spiderpie started