I can do both at the same time
same reason we prosecute immigrants instead of the ‘job creators’ hiring them. money talks.
Probably based on the idea that people who knowingly do bad aren’t going to respond to aphorisms.
We put people who are harmful to society in prison don’t we? So why does certain types of manipulation get exempt?
That’s a much wider question. I mean, we don’t always exempt that behavior, but I would agree it gets a pass far too often.
I have some very bad news about what capitalism means
I know what it means, I’m asking why have we accepted that as a society when it harms 99% of us
Because at least up to now, it harms us less than the alternatives.
Certainly not a recent development. Slaves were used in the past and now they are just paid slaves, most of whom can’t even afford a lot of basic necessities. What alternatives do you mean? All I want is some regulation and some human rights.
Certainly not a recent development. Slaves were used in the past and now they are just paid slaves, most of whom can’t even afford a lot of basic necessities.
We’re certainly backsliding in the last 30 years, but even now this is nearly the best time to live in all of human history. Also, humanity appears to have always exploited others.
What alternatives do you mean?
What alternative do you mean? You’re asking why we accept this. What is your alternative that is better that doesn’t have worse downsides?
All I want is some regulation and some human rights.
We have some. I agree with you, I’d like more, but with recent news it doesn’t look like that is going to happen. Worse, our protective regulations are being stripped away and rights eroded.
probably since it’s allowed the greatest share of humanity to prosper the most for the longest period of time, as apposed to feudalism, and any real world attempts at communism which have been so corrupt they’ve put capitalism’s sins to shame
capitalism == feudalism == bolshevism
The share of human prosperity was thanks to workers fighting for socialist reforms
Because our society financially rewards people for taking advantage of other people, so it would be silly to expect it to stop until it’s unprofitable.
And my question is why is our society not penalizing those who are openly displaying sociopathic tendencies?
because the people who do the punishing also like money and get more of it from continuing the status quo than punishing other money makers.
The question can go all the way up to the top but the basis is still “why have we all accepted something that is harmful to the vast majority of us?”. What I’ve learned from this comment section is that everyone wants to be submissive.
No one is brave enough to see their shadow side (there’s light in there, too!!) and make peace with their demons. Jung advocated doing just that.
Because the people who take advantage, already know that they shouldn’t, and we aren’t going to politely convince them otherwise.
Might as well make it harder for them by warning others that they are out there.
I totally agree with the sentiment though. It’s a shame we have to, but until people can behave themselves, we need to be aware.
Luigi convinced one…
Although, now I’m thinking…
If we tell everyone that people are using X scam to get rich, then how many NEW assholes are convinced they could probably pull it off? Then Those guys come up with new schemes that we announce to everybody, which causes more people to think they should take up scamming.
Oh dear. I need to lie down.
The point is more why are we treating the symptom rather than the disease. People who take advantage of others are manipulators and by definition that’s anti-social. Why is the system so broken that we can’t imprison scammers?
Being “social” often involves power dynamics games. Often that’s even part of the culture. Sometimes people who are not interested in that notice each other and proceed to their own comfy wavelength, but it’s not something I would expect in average “social group”.
“Being “social” often involves power dynamics games” when there are people who want to hoard that power. This mindset is exactly what I’m questioning, why have people accepted sociopathic behaviour
The point is more why are we treating the symptom rather than the disease.
Hell yeah, great point
People who take advantage of others are manipulators and by definition that’s anti-social. Why is the system so broken that we can’t imprison scammers?
What the fuck, how is that your conclusion?
The “disease” is the lack of safety nets- a lack of education, resources, opportunities. “Anti-social” is a copout term to justify the status quo- to pathologize what are ultimately systemic failures manifested in the behavior of individuals. The disease is capitalism, and imprisoning people for “anti-social” behaviors is absolutely the wrong answer.
I’m going to have to assume TherapyGary does not stem from you being a mental health or psychology expert because anti-social is a defined term for people who are harmful to society, people with sociopathic tendencies like manipulation. It sounds like you think I’m saying anti-social as in they don’t like to talk to people, which is not the context of this question.
I’m not sure you understand the question if you believe that disease is something other than anti-social behaviour. The symptom is victims, the cause are the people who made them victims.
I am a therapist and I meet diagnostic criteria for ASPD.
The diagnosis itself exists to pathologize the individual to remove blame from the system that fosters this behavior.
The DSM is a joke
I don’t disagree that our society breeds sociopaths, but on other side of the argument is that you are a person with free will. If your teacher told you to jump off a bridge, would you? Usually not, so regardless of what you learned, it’s your decision to evaluate it and decide what is right and wrong. Which is where your diagnosis would come in, you have been wired with ASPD tendencies but are there not treatments? CBT?
I think we could go back and forth about the same point here without coming to an understanding but In the situation of society vs individuals, the individuals are the ones that came first, that developed society in the form of accepted norms. You can’t change society without changing the people first.
ASPD is far too broad to be worth treating on it’s own. If someone struggles with impulse control and emotion dysregulation, sure, those symptoms are treatable, and treating them is likely to improve the person’s quality of life.
However, most people with ASPD meet criteria because they break the law, lie about it (duh), and don’t feel bad about it (why would they if they did it on purpose?). This should not be pathologized, and doesn’t need treatment.
I don’t even believe in free will, so I expect you’re right that we won’t come to an understanding on this lol 😅
You can’t change society without changing the people first.
This is neoliberal propaganda
Huh? We can imprison scammers. Fraud is a punishable offense.
There are a lot of examples but one you see popular these days are scam coins. I can’t even begin to list how many “influencers” have made off with hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. Not only are they unapologetic about it, they laugh at their fans that donated money to them.
People are OK with a system that gives them a chance at becoming rich, and so long as they are successful doing it, it doesn’t matter how they did it.
Prosperity gospel. Money = good. By the transitive property if you get money you are doing “good”.
It’s self serving broken logic.
So people don’t mind living in a greedy society because they are greedy? I guess the follow up question would be are the majority of people greedy and selfish with no plans to make a better future for the next generations?
If the rabbit knows not of the fox, what good does the knowledge of clover do him?
Well we do have laws against fraud, deceptive marketing, etc. It’s hard for me to imagine what we would be arresting someone for unless it were one of those already illegal acts.
It’s nice to say it should be illegal to take advantage of someone, but who decides if that happened, and by what criteria?
We have laws against it but they are just words on paper. I’ll give you examples then. Ice poseidon meme coin, rugpulled half a mil and admitted on live stream, nothing happened to him. Logan Paul’s Cryptozoo, raised over 18 mil and the game was never real. Faze clan and sam pepper Save the Kids token, relatively small amount of 80k but disgusting that they would use a charitable front to rob people. The list goes on. People who have straight up said on camera, they lied, they took the money, and they are not planning on giving it back. Not a day in jail, not even a trial.
Is it tho? Trump basically lied and committed fraud all the way to the presidency.
Yup. It is the same reason that I can’t stand the people who think the world is an episode of Steven Universe and that if we just show compassion toward the hate mongers that they will change their hearts.
Be good to one another. But also understand that there ARE bad people out there and that they deserve nothing but weary scorn.
Freaky ass weirdos need to stay they ass inside
Roll they ass up like a fresh pack of 'za
City is back up, it’s a must, we outsideProtest day is the 5th at noon in your local downtown or better at your state capital building. Unfortunately it’s in the middle of a capitalist drone’s work day and I just found out today so I think it’s going to be a fail. Don’t let that stop you.
This whole question rubs me the wrong way, like “Why do we teach women to protect themselves instead of teaching men not to rape?”. There’s not a big control panel somewhere that “society” can use to change everyone’s behavior. People are individuals. Some of them will do bad things to others because it benefits them, no matter what they’re taught. If you want to avoid being victimized, you have to be vigilant against that.
You’ll notice only people who grow up in extremely safe societies complain about “teaching women to protect themselves instead of”. People that didn’t know why it’s an idiotic argument to have already.
We were in a pretty damn safe society until a few days ago. But yeah you’re still right.
Bingo.
The only people you actually end up reaching are people with good intentions who don’t need to hear it in the first place. “Stop taking advantage of people” is a message which can usually be dispensed only by force. The moral panic over “toxic masculinity” did very little to affect those who actually caused problems, but a great deal to disenfranchise those who would actually make bad actors stop taking advantage of others.
Always blame the victim, and make yourself one.
DARVOBecause you can’t change the behavior of other people, but you can change your behavior.
this
I know this is supposed to be a profound question on the nature of our society, but I think its a lot more simple than that. First, this isn’t a binary one way or the other. We have “stop taking advantage of people” things written into law already in many places. Things (so far) like the FDA that say food manufacturers can’t put sawdust in food (yes this used to happen). We have the FTC that limits how much interest a company can charge you for lending you money. So we do have some of the “stop taking advantage of people” rules and powers in place.
However what you’re talking about is generally: individual choice. For this the issue isn’t where the attention is directed (the abuser vs the abused), its how this would be implemented. If we’re instead switching the focus and enforcement on to the “stop taking advantage of people” for everyday purchases, who would be the arbitrator of what is being taken advantage of or not who would decide if a change is made, if it is enough of a change? Today it is the individual guided buy the mantra “don’t let people take advantage of you”. Here’s an example if it were the other way:
A new 2025 Ford F-150 starts at $38,710, but if you go to a dealership lot you likely won’t find one for that price. They will all be more expensive for various reasons (no low trim models in stock, arbitrary added dealer markup, or dealer added options like tinting). So if a buyer is at that lot wanted to pay $38,710, are they being taken advantage of because they are forced to pay more? I would argue, yes! (but even my opinion is subjective). So what is the remedy? Do we force dealers to stock X number of base models with no addons? What if those sell out? Do the dealers have to stop selling higher trim models until they can get more base models on the lot resulting in ZERO F150 trucks for sale at any price?
People want a choice to decide on their own if they are being taken advantage of, and whether they are is subjective to the person, and a remedy is also subjective.
Because we like blaming victims. It keeps them easy to victimize if you can convince them it’s their failure.
I find that phrase is most often used to dismiss those who try to help people in need.
Because victim blaming is easier
Because we as a society blame the victims more than the perpetrators.
Yes but why
I hate to be that guy, but our society is based upon a capitalist system, where people are rewarded for ruthlessness and competition — not collaboration, solidarity, or respect.
There are capitalist societies that don’t lean fully into greed though, most scandinavian countries in fact and that’s why they consistently rank as the happiest countries
Just came here to say your username is awesome shit made me laugh LOL
No, you’re awesome
I love it lol rock on man
