this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
720 points (99.0% liked)

196

16503 readers
2496 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Get in the Hilux.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

The CEOs maybe, but they then hire people who know all this psychology and absolutely know how to accomplish this.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago (6 children)

I think this and similar ideas were more of an post-implementation discovery that now drives refused change of said systems. The idea that some grand plan has been in effect from any starting point is where absurdity is introduced.

The wealthy, ie the powerful, cannot even agree within their circle on much, and the entire personality that reaches said level isn't known for thorough meticulous loyalty to a group plan.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The short name for what you've just described is POSIWID - the Purpose Of a System Is What It Does. There is no meaning in ascribing intent to a system beyond its function, because intentions don't matter. Systems act regardless. If an outcome occurs - our emiseration - and those in charge do nothing to correct it, then they are implicitly approving of it, so it becomes part of the system's purpose by evolution.

[–] notanaltaccount 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This doesn't preclude policy decisions made by elite politicians funded by the wealthy from being designed to keep lower classes too exhausted to politically mobilize or rise up the caste or class system.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

If you read The laws of power and super freakonomics, it's easy to draw the conclusion that ethical companies are out competed by unethical companies, and should a company choose to remain ethical despite that, then the company can come to an end.

It's financial death by a million cuts.

If you refuse to use slave labor to produce your tennis shoes, the company that does use slave labor to produce their tennis shoes can sell their shoes for less money.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No absolutely not, I agree, and I made the point elsewhere in this thread that anyone who knows "entrepreneurial" types will know that they relish in this kind of machiavellian thinking. They think it makes them so smart and so good at business that they know how to manipulate people into spending money.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)