Seems more like one person who could lift the couch one handed is sitting on it yelling at the person who can’t lift it by themselves
randon31415@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Let us examine the couch movers analogy.
A) If two people, A and B, who can lift 25 lb move a 50 lb couch, and A does not try 100%, whose fault is is that couch does not get moved?
B) If A can lift 20 lb and B 30 lb, and A does not give 100%, whose fault is it then?
C) If A can lift 30 lb and B 20 lb, and A does not give 100%, whose fault is it then?
D) What if both can lift 20 lb?
E) What if A can lift 100 lb and B can lift 20 lb?
F) What if A can lift 20 lb and B can lift 100 lb?
G) What if A and B can both lift 100 lb?
I find it interesting that whose fault seemingly changes even if it is always assumed A is not giving 100% in all cases.
plantedworld@lemmy.world 1 year ago
ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 year ago
I think where this analogy falls short is that in reality it gets assumed everyone can lift the same if they just would give 100 %. And therefore one person always gets the blame since they are seemingly not giving enough.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Otherwise known as bootstraps.
The thing assholes always tell you they pulled themselves up by, conveniently ignoring their rich, connected family and friends that was the biggest factor in their success.
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 year ago
There’s also a difference between fault, responsibility, and ability to do something. They’re interrelated, but they’re not equivalent. If A is able to move 100 pounds, but not obligated to do so and not trying then A is able, but not responsible and not at fault. If A can only lift 20 pounds, works as a mover and gives their best effort then A is unable to move the couch, responsible for moving the couch, but not at fault as they’ve done everything they can do to move the couch. I could go on but my point stands: it’s a weak, reductive metaphor.