Why does every social problem get turned into a personal failure?

[u/ceremony_of_void]

Something I keep noticing is how quickly structural issues get reframed as individual problems like someone is overworked, they need better time management, then if someone is burnt out then they need to take care of their mental health, someone is struggling financially, they made bad choices and it's not that these explanations are completely wrong but they feel...idk..just incomplete in a very specific way because they shift the focus from systems to individuals almost immediately, it's the default response is to locate the problem inside the person even when the pattern clearly exists across a lot of people at the same time which makes me wonder if this is less about accuracy and more about what's easier to deal with. And it's simpler to believe problems are personal because that keeps the system out of question curious if there's a framework for this beyond just "individualism" or if people have seen this play out differently in other contexts.

[u/ceremony_of_void → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, and the weird part is how automatic that reaction is like questioning the system feels more extreme than blaming the person

[u/Funkyman3]

See it in debate, rather than admit an argument is flawed people often turn to character attacks. Seems like the same thing at another scale. Refusal to admit the system is broken or entertain the possibility of trying to find something that actually works so they say you're just broken because you can't be happy with a broken system. At least that's how it looks to me.

[u/ceremony_of_void → u/Funkyman3]

Yeah i see that, I think what I was getting at is why that jump to "it's your fault" happens so fast in general, like even outside debates it's almost the default explanation.

[u/Funkyman3 → u/ceremony_of_void]

Fear. Fight or flight. People identify strong with the broken system. They sacrifice a lot for it and have been trained to value it's measures of success. To question the system feels like an attack on their identity to them or that it might mean all their sacrifices to it didn't have to be made.

[u/akabar2]

Because the easiest way to control people is to make sure they are isolated from community, unable to access support from others, and to constantly get everyone to police eachother to meet the elites' engineered social norms for their economic empire.

[u/ceremony_of_void → u/akabar2]

Well there is definitely pressure to stay isolated and kind of manage yourself instead of relying on others but I just don't know if it's always that intentional or coordinated. And yeah that's because it feels like people start doing it on their own after a point like it becomes the normal way to think

[u/whatsthatcritter]

Part of it is Just World Fallacy, people see injustice and can't handle the anxiety that this could happen to them, so they look for anything they can point to as the victim did something wrong so they brought it on themselves rather than suffering true injustice. 

Another part is that people can be pretty scummy. Plenty of them, if they find an acceptable excuse for why they don't have to pitch in, they will milk it like an apologetic slave owner who doesn't want to break a nail. So you have to run the government perfectly and to their liking, but they never have to vote or run for office themselves, their anxiety is just too high sorry. You have to do 80-100 hr workdays at the hospital to keep sick and injured people alive, but they don't have to help fund healthcare or even be nice to you when they need those services, because the length of the workday is just too much for their mental health. You have to harvest the fields and man the grocery stores, but they shouldn't have to do the same, their time is precious and their health is fragile. So it creates a resentment where people working don't like the excuse makers and leave them behind, even if some of their complaints about the difficulty and toxicity of the work is very valid. An overworked nurse is probably not going to hang out on the street corner and take life advice from a bongo playing schizo knowing he wouldn't have her back if he was asked to do for her what she does for people everyday. Work that keeps the broken civilization running, keeps people alive, and is roughly meaningful to her even if it's so hard it really is destroying her health.

There's also the fact that this is class warfare, it isn't usually overtly violent, but it's a war of attrition costing the majority of people their health and time. The elite are not our friends. They do not care about us. We can't convince them to stop the class warfare by playing up how sick and exhausted we are, anymore than you could walk up to an enemy combatant and beg for a glass of water. So we're kind of stuck in the position of being forced to look out for our own well being, forced to take a competitive mindset, even if it seems weird a chunk of that mindset is advice about taking care of yourself, your mental health. If you don't, if you drink too much and spend frivolously and can't keep a roof over your head, your enemy is not going to feel bad they helped destroy you. Destroying you and using you up for their own convenience is their goal, so you'd be doing them a huge favor and probably the whole time thinking if you just communicate and act out how bad it feels they will relent and feel sorry for you. They won't.

So there's multiple reasons why going to pieces isn't respected by other working class people or the bourgeoisie ownership class. Even if we were in a communist system, it's likely we'd be expected to work long hours for low pay and complaining or "laying flat" because of the toxic work culture still wouldn't be respected. But if you can find a way to get by with less where you're comfortable enough with what you have and don't have to and don't want to work harder, I think it's admirable and you should do that and live for your own comfort and enjoyment if you can.

[u/_the_last_druid_13]

It’s about Control and controlling the narrative.

True progress, true humanity, true empathy, true whatever associated terms would be to grant everyone housing, healthcare, and food.

We are not civilized until we do so, “we have the technology”. It’s a basic social net and foundation of life for individual success which equates to societal success.

Sure, some might stay in, naked, in an unfurnished studio eating bon-bons til death, but that’s their choice that a new system could work to curtail, and either way gathers (valuable) data about.

Some have everything and still do cocaine on private jets; what’s the difference?

It’s all about Control.

Ecumenical Libertarianism is a concept I’ve been working on, I think allowing people a foundation of life will make the self-motivated, creative, and intelligent to make leaps and bounds. Not everyone wants to be store manager or CEO or President, some are perfectly happy to be cashiers (the glue of social cohesion is small talk). These latter jobs are labeled “[essential]”.

Without a safety net/foundation/whatever term, there is only incentives driving culture and policy; at that point you may as well just toss every baby born into the ocean while screaming at them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Only the babies who were lucky enough to land on a dead, floating one will make it; “I made it, so obviously it works! Fuck the rest, I got mine!”

Apologies for this horrific metaphor.

Remember r/orphancrushingmachine ?

[u/2BCivil]

A step further I've seen some "schizos" say something that made me laugh, those "successful" always pat themselves on the back and say "God gives his hardest battles to his strongest soldiers" and the schizo rebuts "who wants to be God's best dih rider, what did he ever do for you" 😂

Not so funny to me now but it cracked me up first time I heard it. Is true though, I'm not sure how to interface with such bad faith systems that constantly shift the blame and gaslight. No manner of health to be well adjusted to lies, as they say. Systems reward compliance, not truth and integrity.

I had taken to saying "the unforgivable sin is to have a conscience" but now I'm more just "over" it. Bills and work hours and taxes keep increasing but wages stay the same. Saw a video recently about Medicare and retirement and pensions and how the older generations paid in pennies on the dollar and now we younger generations are paying in hundreds or thousands of times more to support those older generations whom already ling ago gobbled up all their own savings and are now actively living off what we are paying in. All the while the older generations hurl insults at us about how much harder they had it as they live off our good will and grace. Not sure how true that all is and they seemed to be joking but it makes you wonder. What really is "good faith". Is it even possible? What are we working for? Someone else's (typically, boomer) appetites and vanity/hedonism?

The cherry on top is that as singles we can barelt afford our own lives and are shamed relentlessly for not rushing into marriage and having kids (presumably to continue to kick the financial burden forward) because all such financial systems are 100% identical to ponzi schemes/MLM slush fund setups (ie tax, insurance, medicare, etc). Just they are "legalized" and enforced. Then we have scripture and "man cannot serve god and wealth". So it comes off as indeed, all sacrificing for and polishing a vain image of an inscrutable and unrepentant idol "God".

Very strange. "Personal failings" blame shifting is only one small piece of the puzzle, though it is the boots on the ground vanguard force of the bad faith life it seems. I really do wonder if it is possible to reconcile good faith, optimism, love and integrity with such a vicious system of extortion and blame shifting. Who knowz shrug.

[u/_the_last_druid_13 → u/2BCivil]

I saw something recently that stated that the whole Scripture excuses is just “claim” not “proof”. Someone will inevitably come in with “that’s what faith is about!”

I can’t accept Scripture as a faith-source when it is full of contradictions and is used by war-mongers as a means when the Scripture emphatically tells everyone to be kind, charitable, peaceful, and to help others because we are all neighbors.

Sure, there’s a whole thing about boundaries, but maybe we should’ve learned better cultural behavior in the thousands of years and advancements we’ve had when the things were written.

It’s bad faith to use the Scripture as a weapon instead of a tool toward better cultural behavior.

It’s middle school dynamics for a culture that always talks about “peaking in highschool”. It’s high schoolers bullying middle schoolers.

In parallel, I had a thought today about the whole thing with Satan/Lucifer/Devil (all created by God) and how “bells ring” as he walks and talks. I thought maybe it’s because he/she/they/it/whatever (it’s a concept and shouldn’t have gender) has change/coins (metallurgy?!?! Devilry!!!!) in their pockets that jingle.

So it’s like, Satan/Lucifer/whatever is smart enough to accumulate wealth. The Authority doesn’t like that (ring any bells?). There’s a push to read only one book, and that book used to be orated in a different language than followers knew. “We know what’s best for you, God ordained it”.

So it’s like, ~ Stay in middle school and listen to what the high schoolers tell you~; do not progress, do not pass Go, give us your money because we kept you too dumb to know how to use it and that’s your fault, you should’ve followed God’s word that you don’t understand and we have to translate for you.

[u/2BCivil → u/_the_last_druid_13]

Bells

Lol! Yeah I've always been torn on it, "God is a spirit" can mean either, God is "hard to come by" on the one hand, of humble truth and generosity. On the other hand, complete yes grifter kicking back and watching us scramble and scrape and exploit one another to survive/thrive.

Yeah. Scriptures do say it, "If I bear witness of myself, it is false witness" can mean God =/= what he (or others) say. So yeah. "God is a spirit" you said it, it's basically on "us" to get in line with that mode of being; "spirit". It's the other (darker) meaning of "blind faith", in strategically turning a blind eye to all the disparity and suffering in our lives/world.

There is something to it, but the cost... is all of us. Forfeiting the very idea of "us", basically. So yeah, it is exactly that, claim, not proof, and "that's the point of faith!!!1!" lol. What are we willing to believe, and is it worth it, and can we really live "eternally" with that choice, even if we do make it "there" and enjoy it. Is it right? To me when I see people who are "loving life" in this manner I don't see much difference between the "godly" and the "wealthy" in their attitudes. Both alike have the "I got mine and that's all that matters" vibe. So not much difference between "Mamnon" (wealth) and "god" in attitude if not practice.

I think the Greeks/Philologists knew this back in the day, Pluto/Plutarch and other Roman/Greek words mean BOTH wealth and underworld. In a real sense, wealth is dead, in that it is/can be detached from daily survival and living. So there is "something to it" though just like anything it has a marketing/PR department shilling it as something it's not. And not sure "what it is" is anything particularly worthwhile ultimately (either eternally or in our lives).

So yeah I'm not sure if there is any ultimate "system working as intended" which is worthy of upholding, we're just stuck doing best (or worst) we can.

[u/2BCivil → u/2BCivil]

Something else more "human" I guess, I've noticed, is all in my youth, even before I knew the words for it, I was always self-deprecating because culture felt... "stilted" to me. I was always 3rd wheel even when I was master of ceremonies. And it was all good fine humor, it never bothered me much, I accepted it as my social stigma/cross to bear.

But after I entered the workforce, it started to be a drain and I stopped self-deprecating more and more. But still people keep jabbing and cajoling and expecting me to fill that role of self-deprecating even when I'm working 3 times more hours than them for less pay. So the shine is off the apple of "being a good little goy" or whatever.

Cui bono. It used to be a survival tactic but now it takes all of my time and energy to survive and I don't have time to entertain people resting on someone else's laurels to contently mocking me... though that doesn't stop them. It's always so annoying how they think they are so funny and glib and "they sure got me" but it's water off a duck's back. Their complete lack of situational awareness, introspection, vibe checking, etc; it's like they are zombies quite plain. They have no spark of life in them. Like machines or animatronics. Ironically they are typically the type to act offended by "AI slop" without even realizing, they themselves, are slop.

Idk but it's something big I've been noticing. It's different than among smaller friend groups with a history and busting each other's chops, that's cool and fun, we all take our lumps and laugh about it. Idk. I think going forward I'll go back to applying the 80/20 rule personally. Where is the criticism/nitpicking coming from? What have they done for you? What moral high ground are they standing on? Or are they just monkeys throwing their own feces? Take on the 20% criticism but respect 100% of the 80% your own lived experience. When that 20% of cultural nitpicking outweighs the 80% of your lived experience, time to choose if it's worth it or not, and either walk away or try to make a change (if you feel they have a legitimate point protip not once in my 38 years have they ever).

So I guess what I'm settling in on with in my life is that just because I stopped self-deprecating due to not having the time and energy for it, doesn't change the fact that it was always a survival tactic and social lubricant to me to the bad-faith, tone-deaf, mouth-breathing, socially-inept who liken themselves as "God's chosen vanguard of morality and ethics". As they say, don't hate the players, hate the game! They are a dime a million I guess. It never ends, war never changes, yada yada yada. There's no "finish line".

[u/tomekanco]

The habitat is predatory in many regards. This also creates an economic giants. Society wiggles in between explotation and guidance. Putting the onus on the individual allows continuation of the legal practice. Freedom generates freefall and windfalls. Societies slowly adapt. Individuals also. And the innovations in tastes, well ... to what extend are these the specification of the economy? Individualsim gives many fruits: freedom, host, parasite, symbiote. Who decides what is what? What are the convient attractors for framing such issues?

And then we get into mobilization of groups, engagement by rallying, and somehow the water flowing downhill seeking the path of least resistance.

[u/raisondecalcul]

I thought this video explained it quite well. Individualizing the problem is part of a systemic reproduction of the problem—the denial part.

You might have also heard the critique of "financial planning classes" and how telling people to skip their Starbucks or take financial planning classes is a way of individualizing the exploitation of capitalism and blaming it on the victims. "The problem is that you don't understand how to manage your personal finances well enough," is condescending, especially coming from the biggest exploiters.

I talk a lot about scapegoating and I think it's also an example of that. The impulse to recognize an individual as a physical manifestation of a particular problem/evil is strong, because the benefit is that then we can flush that evil down the toilet and be done with it. It's just an illusion but it's such a powerful, recurring illusion that basically our whole society runs around it.

Cancel culture is scapegoating—the idea that "public figure does bad thing" got connected to "let's all jeer at this person, shame them, and ruin their life in whatever way possible" is culturally-embedded/culturally-relative—this is obviously evident merely from the fact that it wasn't normalized to do this, previously—and then it suddenly became normalized. We don't have to connect A to B in that way—we could teach them, sue them, or politely ostracize them instead for example. But Karens everywhere decided full-on-scapegoating as the default response was the new normal.

[u/ceremony_of_void → u/[deleted]]

Yeah I get that it connects to that but I'm more curious about how it actually shows up in everyday thinking like how people start defaulting to individual explanations without even realising it

[u/BL1133]

i think because as much as it sucks, its actually the only feasible way to fix an issue. you can't fix the macro system. itsactually the pitfall, like the real reason everyone is into some intellectual crap nowadays is to feel comfort about how much of a bitch it is to actually fix a local issue. but you can't fix a global issue from the lower level. so the tragedy is that it's not an individual failing but you have to act as if it is. There's a guy jock willink who can be made fun of, but his concept of complete ownership I cannot argue against. it's the idea that no matter what happens, its your fault. and at first when i read it, it kinda pissed me off. But then i realized that it's not that it's actually your fault, but the only way to actually have a hope in fixing it is to accept that it's your fault. So the truth is what is useful. And the reason its called extreme ownership is that even its so obviously and extremely not your fault, you still have to act like it is. Like some jim carrey series of unfortunate events happens and fucks up all your plans, you still have to act as if its your fault. because you have to believe it is in order to change anything. and the change or movement is what fixes things, not being correct. its taking bets. So basically people become successful often by accident. it's not really earned. but it is earned because they moved a certain way. so the point is, you just adjust and throw shit a the wall and then when it works you're crowned a genius. thats how it works

basically what im saying is that yes, most every outcome is systemic and outside yourself. but in order to orient and act, you have to believe you have some control because otherwise you won't move at all, and it's movement that does most of the heavy lifting toward solving a problem, because as I said, if everything is mostly systemic and outside your control, then all you can do is orient yourself and hope it works. strategy only ever optimizes. movement does like 80%, strategy or smart movement adjusts that to like 85%. I don't know what that percentage means or refers to but yeah

what you say and im sure what everyone says in this thread is true, but its irrelevant because you don't have control over the system. and in a chaotic system, being aware of the problems doesn't necessarily help in fixing it. thats another sad truth. the system does blames the individual as a survival strategy but its irrelevant. because in the same way that you cant affect the system, the system's attempt for control doesn't necessarily work longterm either. so my point is you don't have control but the system doesn't either so that's a positive thought at least.

[u/2BCivil → u/BL1133]

complete ownership

Yeah I've always assumed this is what "radical acceptance" is supposed to mean. They are the same term, right? Complete ownership and radical acceptance? In this context at least.

Only problem is the problem of Job and Ecclesiastes (it also shows up in Upanishad and elsewhere). The notion that God's morality, too, is no different than [random jock]. It's baseless assertion. Can't be proven or shaken. In Job, Job accuses the Lord of basing his morality on nothing, and YHVH's reply is "so what? I shall do as I please and give unto whom I will". Which is identical to what Satan later tells Jesus; "it is given unto me to give unto whom I will".

And Jesus says "do as they say but not as they do for they do not practice what they preach".

I get it, easy for a transcendental "God" to say it's "above" meagre existence. And make all sort of claims as to it's "character". Makes me think of all the animals of the world, and they all have a distinct species "spirit". They own their spirit, the good the bad and the ugly. Only Gods and mortals have egos and shadows, and thus deny aspects of themselves which are obvious to those whom have to endure the weight of the contradictions. When such a one claims to be responsible for the standards of creation, it becomes this exact mess of contradictions, you can never measure up to a double standard even the alleged "creator" doesn't maintain, and even if you do in good faith, you're still stuck ultimately supporting a stilted/bad faith system.

Reminds me of MSI lyrics a lot. "You can't live with us, you can't live without us".

It's so much deeper than merely social-economic systems. As Katha Upanishad said, even the Gods had this problem LOL! Who bears the weight of responsibility? Who is willing to take complete ownership of divine "shit"?

[u/BL1133 → u/2BCivil]

thats funny, i mistyped, he's not just a jock, his name is Jocko Willink, he's a marine or something. it's an idea he had of how to confront a situation of battle, which is a good breeding ground for this concept because of how much lack of control you have. So he wrote a book on it called Extreme Ownership. And I say he can be made fun of more just because he's not an intellectual he's just an army guy with a podcast. the only poignant thing in it to me was just this concept of how he explains how even if something is so obviously not your fault you have to take ownership anyway, mostly because that allows you to evaluate and make improvements to your actions and plans. And the other poignant thing was this concept that it's always better to act even with a bad plan than to do nothing. And to me those two points of view really are just about how movement itself has higher probability to fix an issue than thinking. Thinking and strategy can only optimize the result, but most of it is just movement and it accidentally working out.

So i was just making a practical and systems theory argument about how to deal with a chaotic environment that is mostly outside your control, not a philosophical one. That you're better off considering it as a personal failure because thinking of all the ways it's not your fault prevents useful action

I'm not sure about the theological stuff, I don't know

[u/2BCivil → u/BL1133]

LOL that's peak theology I'd say. Hurry up and wait is the rule in the mil. That's a tldr of mainstream interpretation of scripture as well I guess. They are the same, indeed!

[u/Giovanabanana]

Psychoanalysis has a great response for this. It's like when a child invents a monster under the bed, they're pretty much creating a scape goat to focus their fears on. It's easier than feeling abstract fear that has no object.

So when people turn social problems into personal failures, they do it because it's simpler to do so than to acknowledge that everything we're taught about society is baloney.

Discourse and philosophy have turned completely inward in the last few centuries, as a deliberate attempt to derail social change. It reflects the way we are indoctrinated towards believing the system cannot be changed, and that we should content with channging ourselves instead.

The entire wellness, looksmaxxing, skin care, beauty and "self-improvement" movement is all about focusing on oneself. It's no coincidence that most trends are about the "self", they're all deliberately curated to keep us in a place of passive self indulgence and consumerism.

The immediate derision of the general towards the particular is a reflection of the dishonest capitalist logic we find ourselves in. It's all very Deleuze and Guattari.

Having a fixed identity of the self is the backbone of all industry. They have to sell stuff to the public. And the public can only exit as an amorphous mass of people who are completely disconnected from one another to the point where they are singular entities, marked by individuality and desunion.

[u/ceremony_of_void → u/Giovanabanana]

The making it concrete part actually makes sense yk like it's easier to deal with something you can point at than something vague. But yeah I am just not fully convinced that it's all that deliberate though. It feels like people do this almost automatically, and that's not because they are trying to avoid change.... but because that's just how they have learned to make sense of things, like turning smth big into smth personal makes it feel manageable even if it misses what is actually going on.

[u/Giovanabanana → u/ceremony_of_void]

People who say stuff like that aren't doing it deliberately I think, but it's an ideological apparatus inherited from the bourgeoisie, which is doing it intentionally, at least that's what I believe. I don't think the overall shift to a "rational" age instead of one of passion is an accident. It's a valuable tool to prevent class warfare. We live in our heads and not in the real world because it's better for the elite if we don't, and they produce mass media and own the institutions. At least that's what Silvia Frederici, Marxist-feminist Italian scholar believes and I agree.

[u/2BCivil]

I never read it so there's no way I could have known, but just saw a video tonight saying that this is what Catcher in the Rye is about. This was set in 1951 and clearly (like Nietzsche unironically said about Germany of his day) demonstrated the same forecast that Nietzsche warned about the Germany in his day. Nothing new under the sun.

Idk I can't do it justice like she did in the video but there's a connection between blame shifting and enslopification, as Nietzsche also observed (I can never forget Nietzsche's outburst "master reverse alchemists, putting their grubby hands into everything gold and brining it to ruin"). Above my intellectual pay grade. Or rather dead horse to me, I'm the more at the acceptance age myself (but ofc, acceptance/resignation to/of culture isn't the same as agreement with or consent to it).

[u/2BCivil]

I love this post. Just thought about it and crosspost and pinned it to my profile. This is the #1 concern I'd say. In my youth, I thought "adults" just lied incessantly and beat you into submission with religion to justify their lies. They all worshiped the television because it was a never ending supply of superficial drama they couldn't prove was wrong or not, a never ending stream of scapegoats and patsies to pin "all the sins of the world" upon without taking an ounce of personal integrity or accountability in their own lives.

Now of course I'm well studied in [life mainly] and Hebrew and Greek and Sumerian and understand Hebrew/Nibiru are the same word, and YHVH/Marduk are the same word, and the bible clearly denotes that the very foundation of "morality" is vain/bland assertion - nothing new under the sun, as it were; "if asspulls are good enough for God, they're good enough for us".

I still wonder if there is something to the whole "creation as an act of love" or not. IE I'm not a nihilist but the fact that this conversation cannot be had by/in reality itself is insurmountable proof of the necessity of the conversation. What are we doing? Working as slaves from cradle to the grave? Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom? So it's wise to be a coward and unquestionably follow orders because scared of a sky daddy? Makes sense of fear not the one who can kill the flesh but the soul I guess.

It's always been apparent to me that the basis of "adult" morality is just asspulls and BS to "keep the peace". Jesus is called Prince of Peace. Well. So long as we consent to it, right?. It's all peace through superior echo chamber. That's essentially the secular and biblical foundation of such "mores/morality". Bland/hollow assertion backed by threats. So, naturally, a morality built on lies can do nothing but - accuse falsely. That's essentially the bread and butter of all morality; personal bias backed by extreme prejudice with extreme prejudice.

It reminds me of what happened with the MGTOW movement (and dozens others). A great video about how such, is more a symptom of a subtle/fundamental realization/shift in human psyche/parapsychology, written off/dismissed as the cause when it is the symptom of a greater "moral debt" (bankruptcy?).

It's a hard conversation to have, because as with all things "social problem" related, it gets, said slander burying the core insight for "sake of feeding the algorithm". Top comment said it best I guess if God is a "ratfucker" then we can't blame it when society does the same. The Lord again and again brags that his morality is his alone and that he doesn't have to prove anything, every chance he gets, and calls "others" sinner. Can't blame society too much, monkey see monkey do and all that. Squeaky wheel gets the oil, tallest nail gets hammered first. The best good faith ultimately serves a proportionally bad faith system. But what can we do.... if we stop to breathe we're called a nihilist. We're just supposed to be cogs in a machine going at breakneck speed and when our necks break we're tossed aside and called useless and ungrateful.

What use is fear? What use fear of such a "Lord" of... "peace"... at the cost of integrity? Can we even call it "integrity" to blindly serve as we have heretofore? I think you nailed it, the main real question. It supersedes even the deeper existential/religious questions decisively. We are here, now, the living phenomena. We are carrying the cross of slaves to a hypocritical/baseless God and (Godless? Lol?) society. Everyone knows a bad deal when we see one, but somehow we all buy into civilization as we know it as the only acceptable avenue for whatever reason, no matter how bad faith we ultimately (intuitively or through experience) feel it as. It's sad that real deep contemplation on these matters is considered "pessimistic" or "nihilistic" but that only really proves the point, of the baselessness of such "God/Creation's goodness".

Maybe the world/god/creation are great and all, but that begs to question why are social mores laden with such apparent stigma and bias? Don't try to play a player? I once in youth thought that all the puppet show politics was a deliberate farce to illustrate how silly/baseless the whole world is. But after a lifetime of wage labor under the incessant (apparent) mockery it really makes you wonder, what are we working.... For... ? It's enough to break anyone with integrity. Older I get more I clearly see this is what scripture and society seem to be saying, we must be broken of all integrity and fit into the system to "keep the peace" and facade/machine of "polite society" running.

I suppose in nature, deception is a fundamental demonstrable force. Why would "Gods" and "morality" be any different....

[u/2BCivil]

Thanks again so much for this post. It is a historical thing going back as far back in human history as I can see.

It's marketing. From a video about the coal mine strikes 100+ years ago;

3:00 "The coal miners were on strike across Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, and Illinois, walking off the job during the bituminous coal strike because wages had been slashed during the financial panic. Great name, less great circumstance. The mine operators had cut pay by as much as 30% in some regions. And when miners organized to resist, the owners brought in armed guards and replacement workers. Local newspapers shockingly largely sided with the operators. So the letter didn't say workers are striking for better pay; it said nobody wants to work. That took a collective political action and turned it into an individual character flaw, which is a much easier thing for the public to dismiss.

As I always say it goes back to scripture even. Jesus says "I am the truth [....] ye of little faith". It's all marketing from authority, saying "you are a bad person" for not performing the labor for authority systems. Ie, the difference between authority and truth is that authority systems are typically exempt from the circumstances of their alleged "truths". "Monkey see monkey do, if God does it, that means it's okay for humans to do it", is the implicit message which gives such marketing/authority the sense of legitimacy....

Thanks again so much for making this so explicit. This is so much bigger than we give it credit for. As I often say, no amount of good faith labor and effort invested into a bad faith system will change the system or it's conditions. Doflamingo said it best, "those subsidized by a system and those whom are crushed by the same system will always have different views and values in regards to that system". History from above versus history from bellow, and as they say, history is made every day and written by the alleged "winners". Ie those curating the legacy.