Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)UN
Posts
0
Comments
12
Joined
1 wk. ago

  • The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness. (Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms)

  • Fair enough. I get overwhelmed by all the ethical questions that come with being in the real world.

    My partner outsourced most of that mental work and focused on trying to be a good person from moment to moment. I think she would've broadly agreed with you from a karma standpoint.

  • As long as they punch down and kiss up to the right people, assholes can usually reduce "tit for tat" to "tit for slap-on-the-wrist".

    I agree you that they are more likely than not to produce a suboptimal future.

    I just disagree with the premise that "winning less" is the same as tit for tat.

  • Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think tit for tat was written from the perspective of nation vs nation decision-making.

    It assumes you have roughly equivalent power, i.e. person vs person or business vs business.

    I don't think it applies in person vs boss, or mom 'n pop shop vs international conglomerate.