[deleted]
Probably based on the idea that people who knowingly do bad aren’t going to respond to aphorisms.
[deleted]
Submitted 2 days ago by ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 days ago
ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee 2 days ago
[deleted]TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 days ago
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.
artificialfish@programming.dev 2 days ago
So many of the ways we manipulate people are illegal. As such we have actually said “don’t do it” in the strongest way possible. But usually people don’t advocate prison time for the ways the saying means when it says manipulate. Like I can manipulate you to buy me a better present than you usually do by saying “if you don’t do this for me then you don’t really love me”. Is your response in that situation “straight to jail”?
stupidcasey@lemmy.world 2 days ago
You sound like the kind of person I could take advantage of.
xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 2 days ago
Because you can’t change the behavior of other people, but you can change your behavior.
transitinoir@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
this
nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Because our society financially rewards people for taking advantage of other people, so it would be silly to expect it to stop.
ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee 2 days ago
[deleted]nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
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.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 days ago
You cannot positively control the actions of others, and others cannot positively control your actions. You can influence the actions of others, but you can only control your own.
We can influence members of society to “stop taking advantage of people” all day long. But if you want to control whether people are taken advantage of, you have to address the victims rather than the perpetrators.
Society can try to placate perpetrators. There’s little sense stealing something that everyone already has. We can appeal to the perpetrator’s empathy, but that assumes they have some. We can threaten repercussions and hope that has a deterrent effect. But, the final decision as to whether to perpetrate is always in the head of the perpetrator, and outside the reach of anyone else.
If you want greater control over that decision, the only option you have is to take your own action.
ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee 2 days ago
[deleted]Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 days ago
Ok.
I’m going to be hiking through the jungle. The lions have been counseled on my rights as a person; they know they aren’t supposed to eat me. They know that if they are caught eating me, they are going to spend 3 to 5 years in lion-jail.
Before I walk through the jungle, I’m deciding on what to wear. The choices presented to me are:
-
pants, long sleeve shirt, sturdy boots, wide brimmed hat, and a small backpack with water, first aid kit, radio, and extra batteries
-
23 pounds of thinly-sliced beef steaks, sewn into a knee-length sundress, and a pair of stiletto-heeled thigh-high boots.
The argument here isn’t which wardrobe option I choose. The argument here is whether you should say anything to me when I come out of my room in my meat-dress.
-
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Because our economic system is a free for all
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 days ago
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.
njm1314@lemmy.world 2 days ago
To put it very simply and probably too broadly, capitalism. Our whole system is built around taking advantage of people.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Cuz we’re a society full of propagandized idiots who constantly victim blame.
I would recommend taking all of the shame out of getting ripped off. Shame only helps the person who ripped you off because by not discussing and naming and blaming the people who did it due to your own shame, you help them victimize others.
This is the land of the fee, and home of the rip-off. We’ve nearly all been ripped off either knowingly or unknowingly many times in our lives.
otp@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Two reasons that I can think of.
- As many others have mentioned, because many of the people taking advantage of others are not listening to ‘done’ mantras anyways. Changing it around would fall on deaf ears.
- Some people don’t realize they’re taking advantage of others (consider the phenomenon of taking people for granted). Some people might even think that they’re doing something good by taking advantage of someone.
ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee 2 days ago
[deleted]otp@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
The questions on this comment are different from the ones in the original post, lol… people understood your question, but they (rightly) didn’t understand that you wanted an answer to a different pair of questions.
Doing something with people is more challenging than telling something to people, or even trying to reach something.
People are harmful to society for a wide variety of reasons. Trying to treat all of them the same way will lead to failure.
That’s why the North American way of either locking people in jail or making them rich for being harmful to society isn’t working. We’ve tried only two things, and we’re out of ideas.
Why don’t we do anything differently? We can’t agree on what the solutions are, for one…let alone the causes. Secondly, the status quo is doing a good job at keeping the rich and powerful people rich and powerful. So there’s no real incentive to change it.
dogsnest@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Always blame the victim, and make yourself one.
DARVOjaxxed@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
To create a culture of blaming the victim.
Jamablaya@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Because you can’t control other’s , so worry about yourself.
transitinoir@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
Because individuals who believed “don’t take advantage of others” were at evolutional disadvantage comparing to those who believed “do not get taken advantage of”, and thus did not procreate and died out
Like first ones would just get taken advantage of all the time, burn out and die miserably.
Second ones would preserve their mental health and be able to achieve anything meaningful like raising kids.
ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee 2 days ago
[deleted]transitinoir@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
our society is not supposed to accept that behaviour Do not listen to what people tell you but watch what they do. If society did not tolerate sociopaths, sociopaths wouldn’t govern nations and own multi-billion dollar corporations. This behaviour is not only accepted but encouraged.
By the way I am feeling depressed rn so that’s why I am being so pessimistic, do not take too seriously
fakir@lemm.ee 2 days ago
When you reframe the whole world as a jungle with 8 billion animals, your mantra translates to - don’t get hunted, but it’s okay to hunt because that is survival. Primitive instincts.
ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee 2 days ago
[deleted]fakir@lemm.ee 2 days ago
We still possess our primal instincts, we still have flight flight response involuntarily to something new or unknown, we still fall in the us vs them trap, we cheer for our team, our country, our religion, and shit on the other team, other county, other religion. It takes wisdom to rise above labels, but it’s definitely not instinctive.
artificialfish@programming.dev 2 days ago
We are literally by definition the same species as cavemen.
Most people are selfish imbeciles. Never attribute to malice what you could otherwise attribute to stupidity, but you have to ascend both to get to your standard of people. Thats a heavy ask.
Alice@hilariouschaos.com 2 days ago
Just came here to say your username is awesome shit made me laugh LOL
ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee 2 days ago
[deleted]Alice@hilariouschaos.com 2 days ago
I love it lol rock on man
ICastFist@programming.dev 2 days ago
Because victim blaming is easier
meyotch@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
Because we like blaming victims. It keeps them easy to victimize if you can convince them it’s their failure.
HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I can do both at the same time
Kanda@reddthat.com 2 days ago
Offence is the best defence
The_the@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Most people have rather satanic morals
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Because we as a society blame the victims more than the perpetrators.
ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee 2 days ago
[deleted]FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
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.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 2 days ago
I find that phrase is most often used to dismiss those who try to help people in need.
dogsnest@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Alwa
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 2 days ago
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.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Yup. It is the same reason that 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.
Quill7513@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
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 outside
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 2 days ago
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.
ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee 2 days ago
ogmios@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
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.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
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.
Jamablaya@lemmy.world 2 days ago
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.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Luigi convinced one…