"life isn't fair"

Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum

Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
perfanoff said:
I mean OBVIOUSLY communism doesn't work due to the reasons stated above. However they managed to lower the income disparity to the smallest levels yet, and managed to trainwreck their economies. Well of course even a communist country needs an economic model and the state economy failed, giving way back to good old anarchistic capitalism.

Like I said - it wasn't communism. And it didn't lower income disparity.

perfanoff said:
Depriving them of resources? In the civilized world, we have the notion of OWNERSHIP because we've come to terms that if not everyone, many people would run away with the bank. I've experienced for years how this stupid trick works
1. Beg for money
2. Spend it as fast as possible
3. In need again (oh poor person) - beg for more

Incidentally the people who claim others will "run away with the bank" are the ones who do it themselves. A higher percentage of working-class people give to charity than those of the upper classes. Also noteworthy that the politicians who talk about how poor people would "run away with the bank" often get the financial backing of the top 0.01% who own over half the wealth in the US.

Moreover you obviously don't know how it is to have to beg in poverty. It's embarrassing and makes the beggar feel like honeysuckle, not like the beggar has gotten one over on someone else. If you want to get one over on someone else, spend 40 years systematically convincing a whole class of people to fresia themselves.

perfanoff said:
As for the lending/borrowing business, it's the modern variant of slavery, after all people need motivation to work. Getting your house taken if you stop being productive can make wonders on an employee.

And this is morally justified to you?
 
perfanoff said:
But life is indeed not fair on a personal, subjective level.

I'm more of an objective thinker so I instead prefer to think that life is fair. The only thing you need is to embrace the cards you've been dealt in life, the things that have happened to you, and your actions. No room for bitterness there - cause and effect, everything has happened as it should.

It also helps me not be upset about "first world problems". For example I didn't have a smartphone until very recently and I couldn't care less about it. As long as I have secured food, a place to sleep, family and friends, there is no reason I should be unhappy. So maybe there's merit into believing this statement, for your own sake.


Dissident said:
"Life isn't fair" is used almost 99% of the time by narcissists who are doing something to actively impede you. It isn't that life isn't fair, it's that there are people who rationalize ******* others. There is literally enough food and money that there doesn't have to be a single poor, starving person on the planet, but this grim reality only exists because there is a segment of the population that actively and knowingly takes the share of others away from them. "Life isn't fair" is the crown jewel of bullshit excuses.

In most of the world, except for developed nations, you need to work to eat. Unless you're a subsistence farmer. There's hordes and hordes of people that want to eat, moreover, want some technological goodies, while being unable or unwilling to contribute to the production of these goods. Since nobody will work if they don't have to (honestly that was tested very well on billions by communism), a system that provides lots of goods for free is an inevitable failure.

Then there's the other part of limiting resources. Even though we have enough food and resources right now that doesn't mean we will have enough in the future, even if we keep the population in check (which we aren't). Now suppose a small portion of the people on earth have it as a culture to have as many children as possible without investing in their education. Giving these people access to resources will cause them to have more children (that don't starve at least) who in turn will follow that same pattern. So if you provide them with food is going to only fix the problem temporarily, you will address any food surpluses but not address demand for qualified labor, and having a larger problem (more unqualified and unmotivated labor) in the future. So for an economy it's kind of like borrowing to pay for consumer goods when you don't even have a plan of how you will pay it back.

Say, anyone interested in economics/history/society here?


I don't see how thinking life is fair is any less subjective than thinking it's not.


Dissident said:
perfanoff said:
In most of the world, except for developed nations, you need to work to eat. Unless you're a subsistence farmer. There's hordes and hordes of people that want to eat, moreover, want some technological goodies, while being unable or unwilling to contribute to the production of these goods. Since nobody will work if they don't have to (honestly that was tested very well on billions by communism), a system that provides lots of goods for free is an inevitable failure.

Uhh, nobody has actually used communism. A statist regime headed by a rich elite is, on all counts, not communism. But it is super convenient to refer to it as such in order to use it as a scapegoat for unfettered crony capitalism. Of course nobody is going to work out of the kindness of their heart. But there are some very powerful people who get all kinds of money without actually doing any of the work themselves. Also, given that the world has a finite amount of capital, hoarding directly translates into taking from someone else. Period.

perfanoff said:
Then there's the other part of limiting resources. Even though we have enough food and resources right now that doesn't mean we will have enough in the future, even if we keep the population in check (which we aren't).

The birth rate is actually just slightly below the replacement rate.

perfanoff said:
Now suppose a small portion of the people on earth have it as a culture to have as many children as possible without investing in their education. Giving these people access to resources will cause them to have more children (that don't starve at least) who in turn will follow that same pattern. So if you provide them with food is going to only fix the problem temporarily, you will address any food surpluses but not address demand for qualified labor, and having a larger problem (more unqualified and unmotivated labor) in the future. So for an economy it's kind of like borrowing to pay for consumer goods when you don't even have a plan of how you will pay it back.

I fail to see where this justifies knowingly and maliciously depriving people of resources. I'm not saying people should expect to drop all their tools and lounge around. I'm saying that there is no justifiable excuse to make children assemble iPods for chump change or to cut funding to emergency services.
Education is a resource.


bulmabriefs144 said:
Revengineer said:
It's not that I necessarily disagree with the idea, just that it's too often used as a justification to brush off other people's concerns. For example, how often do you hear a conversation like this:

A: I've been working here 5 years longer than the CEO's nephew, and he got promoted ahead of me? That's bullshit.
B: Stop whining, it's how the real world works and we all have to deal with it. Life isn't fair, you know.

It's bullshit. It's bullshit that people push to make themselves feel better about pushing other people around.

Life is fair. This is the natural state of the world. Whether you're rich/poor/whatever, death erases everything. There may be an afterlife or there may not, but if there is, you can't take it with you.

If you have more than another person it is either (a) because you worked harder at it, (b) you were more interested at it (creating talent, since "talent" is actually natural interest in the subject matter), or (c) you were more likeable than the other person and got by on personability rather than talent or work.

You might think it's tough that certain people impressed the boss with their social qualities rather than skill, but there are two things to consider. If you were working like a dog, were you really that pleasant to be around? Also, did you show leadership qualities, or just hard work? Because those who like to lead others tend to be promoted. Sometimes where you are is fine. What isn't fair, is simply that it's not okay to be content. The other guy got promoted in two days, you've worked at the same position for ten years, and they call your position under question when you've come to terms with this.

Now, if you were generally doing all the work, and the other person was generally getting by on just his personality, and in fact he takes the credit for your work, this is an unfairness. You can either (a) leave quietly, (b) create a fuss within the company yelling at all coworkers, or ( c ) pretend to leave quietly but also take the work you've done and render it inoperable. B and C are fair too, as they might not get you hired elsewhere (C might also get you arrested/called back to company to clean up).

That said, it isn't for lack of trying. The courts in most developed countries are a sham, and even worse in undeveloped ones. Income taxes and property taxes make a sort of rigged system where no matter how much you have, you can never really get ahead (you never own your house to the point where you can completely stop paying on it, and the more you make, the more you pay). And there are millions of people in other countries, who haven't anything to eat, because we won't lift a finger to help.
D. You're better looking E. You were born with other genetic advantages that you didn't ask for or work for ( and I know genetics are like a switch board but some peoples switches only go so high or are broken) F. you were born into a family or country with money or social connections that you didn't work for. G. You are the right race in the right geography. H. you were born into the right time, culture or political climate for someone with your personal assets to be valued and be more likely to succeed. Sounds fair to me.
 
Dissident said:
perfanoff said:
I mean OBVIOUSLY communism doesn't work due to the reasons stated above. However they managed to lower the income disparity to the smallest levels yet, and managed to trainwreck their economies. Well of course even a communist country needs an economic model and the state economy failed, giving way back to good old anarchistic capitalism.

Like I said - it wasn't communism. And it didn't lower income disparity.

perfanoff said:
Depriving them of resources? In the civilized world, we have the notion of OWNERSHIP because we've come to terms that if not everyone, many people would run away with the bank. I've experienced for years how this stupid trick works
1. Beg for money
2. Spend it as fast as possible
3. In need again (oh poor person) - beg for more

Incidentally the people who claim others will "run away with the bank" are the ones who do it themselves. A higher percentage of working-class people give to charity than those of the upper classes. Also noteworthy that the politicians who talk about how poor people would "run away with the bank" often get the financial backing of the top 0.01% who own over half the wealth in the US.

Moreover you obviously don't know how it is to have to beg in poverty. It's embarrassing and makes the beggar feel like honeysuckle, not like the beggar has gotten one over on someone else. If you want to get one over on someone else, spend 40 years systematically convincing a whole class of people to fresia themselves.

perfanoff said:
As for the lending/borrowing business, it's the modern variant of slavery, after all people need motivation to work. Getting your house taken if you stop being productive can make wonders on an employee.

And this is morally justified to you?

I've recently chatted with another person like you and people like you find it extremely hard if not impossible to discuss with since there is no discussion when the other party thinks it's a one-way conversation. I'll refrain on discussing things with you from now on.


WL7.3:

"I don't see how thinking life is fair is any less subjective than thinking it's not."

Being objective allows you to stand aside from your personal needs, emotions, etc. It's a way to negate feelings, in this specific case the bad feeling of being screwed by life.

"Education is a resource"

Unfortunately that resource has a minimum cost of obtaining, even if it's provided free of charge to you, you actually have to spend the time, study, adapt. And it's provided free of charge to many, many people. These days even a university degree is not mandatory in many qualified fields, just the demonstrated ability to do the job.

"D. You're better looking E. You were born with other genetic advantages that you didn't ask for or work for ( and I know genetics are like a switch board but some peoples switches only go so high or are broken) F. you were born into a family or country with money or social connections that you didn't work for. G. You are the right race in the right geography. H. you were born into the right time, culture or political climate for someone with your personal assets to be valued and be more likely to succeed. Sounds fair to me."

While somebody is born more advantaged or things coming easier to them in life, the perceived injustice is that you're entitled to have as good a start as them. While the natural truth is you're only entitled to what you actually started with for good or worse. Following thought patterns of perceived injustice by the world is just you destroying yourself, like a psychological cutting of the wrists.
 
perfanoff said:
Dissident said:
perfanoff said:
I mean OBVIOUSLY communism doesn't work due to the reasons stated above. However they managed to lower the income disparity to the smallest levels yet, and managed to trainwreck their economies. Well of course even a communist country needs an economic model and the state economy failed, giving way back to good old anarchistic capitalism.

Like I said - it wasn't communism. And it didn't lower income disparity.

perfanoff said:
Depriving them of resources? In the civilized world, we have the notion of OWNERSHIP because we've come to terms that if not everyone, many people would run away with the bank. I've experienced for years how this stupid trick works
1. Beg for money
2. Spend it as fast as possible
3. In need again (oh poor person) - beg for more

Incidentally the people who claim others will "run away with the bank" are the ones who do it themselves. A higher percentage of working-class people give to charity than those of the upper classes. Also noteworthy that the politicians who talk about how poor people would "run away with the bank" often get the financial backing of the top 0.01% who own over half the wealth in the US.

Moreover you obviously don't know how it is to have to beg in poverty. It's embarrassing and makes the beggar feel like honeysuckle, not like the beggar has gotten one over on someone else. If you want to get one over on someone else, spend 40 years systematically convincing a whole class of people to fresia themselves.

perfanoff said:
As for the lending/borrowing business, it's the modern variant of slavery, after all people need motivation to work. Getting your house taken if you stop being productive can make wonders on an employee.

And this is morally justified to you?

I've recently chatted with another person like you and people like you find it extremely hard if not impossible to discuss with since there is no discussion when the other party thinks it's a one-way conversation. I'll refrain on discussing things with you from now on.


WL7.3:

"I don't see how thinking life is fair is any less subjective than thinking it's not."

Being objective allows you to stand aside from your personal needs, emotions, etc. It's a way to negate feelings, in this specific case the bad feeling of being screwed by life.

"Education is a resource"

Unfortunately that resource has a minimum cost of obtaining, even if it's provided free of charge to you, you actually have to spend the time, study, adapt. And it's provided free of charge to many, many people. These days even a university degree is not mandatory in many qualified fields, just the demonstrated ability to do the job.

"D. You're better looking E. You were born with other genetic advantages that you didn't ask for or work for ( and I know genetics are like a switch board but some peoples switches only go so high or are broken) F. you were born into a family or country with money or social connections that you didn't work for. G. You are the right race in the right geography. H. you were born into the right time, culture or political climate for someone with your personal assets to be valued and be more likely to succeed. Sounds fair to me."

While somebody is born more advantaged or things coming easier to them in life, the perceived injustice is that you're entitled to have as good a start as them. While the natural truth is you're only entitled to what you actually started with for good or worse. Following thought patterns of perceived injustice by the world is just you destroying yourself, like a psychological cutting of the wrists.


It is possible to be objective by your definition and still come to the conclusion that life isn't fair, if it isn't. For example, a judges role is to impartially determine fairness because a set of rules or standards that has been agreed upon as being fair. previously agreed upon rules of fairness are broken all the time. I suppose a more accurate statement in these cases is 'life can be unfair'. Personally, when I say life is unfair, I'm referring to nature as the primary cause of all unfairness and a more accurate expression of the sentiment would be 'life is inequitable.' Since nature is not sentient nor subject to any rules of fair play, then the concept of fairness doesn't exist as a natural law. The concept does exist though within humanity. Since the rules of fairness are ethically based, they are always subjective, but once established, they can be measured objectively. Personally, I think the inequity of nature sucks. Not saying it's wrong, just sucks. When I find out that 6million innocent jews were murdered, I think it's wrong and it sucks. When I notice that my shirt is on backwards, I think it's on wrong and I don't care. what I'm getting at is fairness is an ethical concept relevant between people and emotions are inherent.

fair
/fe(ə)r/
Adjective
In accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.
Adverb
Without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage: "he played fair".
Noun
A gathering of stalls and amusements for public entertainment.
Verb
Streamline (a vehicle, boat, or aircraft) by adding fairings.
Synonyms
adjective. just - equitable - honest - fine - beautiful - clear
adverb. square - fairly - straight - honestly
noun. market - exposition
 
As for the lending/borrowing business, it's the modern variant of slavery, after all people need motivation to work. Getting your house taken if you stop being productive can make wonders on an employee.

Actually, I think it forces people to take the safest path, out of fear, instead of really giving people the freedom to explore themselves and their interests. A lot of people find themselves stuck in jobs they hate, or at the very least that they're bored out of their minds with and don't really care about at all, and don't correspond to their interests or who they really are as people, because that's what pays, then coming home and soothing with Netflix, binge eating, social media scrolling, celebrity gossip, booze, weed, porn, you name it - doing these things more out of compulsion than enjoyment, just as a release from spending all day working on things that have no connection to your purpose or identity, absolutely nothing to do with anything that matters to you or makes you think or feel anything. The system of coercion keeps people trapped in boring, numb, depressing, meaningless, blank and empty lives, just so the people at the top can have more wealth than most people are even capable of comprehending. It's like in a video game, if one side is too powerful, the game becomes unbalanced, and broken, and the game is not only not enjoyable to play, but there's no point playing it. Except in capitalism, you're forced to. I think that's the REAL motivation killer - being forced to work on things you don't care about and don't mean anything to you, as well as working and knowing you're not going to get anywhere anyway. It's like, no wonder a lot of people only work just enough to get paid, why would they do more when they don't like what they're doing, and don't like that they're forced to do it? The system of coercion doesn't do wonders, it only motivates you to do the bare minimum to keep getting paid and not get fired - in fact I would say it inspires crime and corruption, out of desperation to escape it.

And if we're going to use fear to motivate people, how is it really any different than holding a pistol to someone's head? In America we like to say, "you're free". Sure, "you're free" to not be productive, but you're "free" in the same way that "you're free" to not hand your money over to a mugger pointing a loaded gun at you. Technically sure, you're free, except then you get shot after that, meaning your "freedom" is only in theory, and essentially meaningless.

I guess our system is better than that of dictatorships, but at the same time, it still uses fear and threats to coerce people, so it's still on the level of "suck". It's a choice between "bad" and "less bad, but still pretty bad". I feel like any system that relies on coercion, isn't much of a civilization - it's still primitive, still survival of the fittest, still savagery. The fact that we have all this technology but are still stuck in Darwinian competition, really disappoints me and disillusions me with the human race, and makes me think we're not really that smart or advanced. I thought we had the capacity to do, and to be, better than this. I thought doing and being better than this, was the whole point of civilization/society, at all. It makes me not want to work for this world, because it's dumb, like being forced into a religion you don't believe in whatsoever. It makes me not just mad, but genuinely sad that this is how we are.

I think forcing people to be productive or else be homeless, isn't a system worthy of respect, support, or defense. And it ultimately stifles motivation, not inspires it, by forcing people to take the safest path in life, instead of looking for and finding what truly inspires them to work on - and in doing so keeps people trapped in lesser versions of themselves, and unfulfilled lives. I just think, imagine how things could be if we weren't motivated by fear, if we used technology to set ourselves free to work on what we wanted to, if we could work towards self-actualization instead of living in fear - things might actually start to get better, instead of worse and worse with every passing year.
 
Last edited:
As for the original post:

When I think about the saying "life's not fair", I mean, I can look around and see that it's an objective fact.

The thing that I don't like about it though, is that usually when someone says it, they are doing so as an invalidation tactic, and/or to defend that since "life's not fair" that's the way it should continue to be, instead of making it better. It says "the system isn't the problem, you have the problem, accept and adjust to the system". People like that defend the system because they had the dumb luck to be born high in it, or the luck of just so happening to be good at things the system values, and therefore they like it because it works for them and keeps them on top, or they defend it because they've given up on life and resigned themselves to getting nowhere, and think you should settle for that too. That really bothers me - these ******** that take the system's side, and act smug and happy about your misery.

I've always thought things were supposed to get better with time, they're supposed to evolve - in terms of technology, and in terms of civilization. I thought that the reason things are better in the modern era, than past eras, is that we advanced further in science and technology, and also developed more compassionate attitudes valuing life more - in other words, the further we get AWAY from "life's not fair" aka natural selection/cold, uncaring, cruel, cutthroat Darwinian competition/survival of the fittest/might makes right, the more happiness is created, and the more misery is reduced.
I feel like every time life got "fairer", quality of life got better.

I also really don't think coercion brings the best out in people - it's the opposite, I think having a safe background, knowing you have enough, allows you to study what intrinsically motivates you to learn it, and to take risks, all without being worried about money or safety. That's what I think enables and empowers people to do their best work, and to be fully present in what they're doing, and inspired.
 
Last edited:
People that use "life isn't fair" as a way to dismiss other people's concerns and problems make me want to hurt them or otherwise impede their progress in life, just so I can say, with the biggest ****-eating grin ever, "life isn't fair :D." People who do that need to suffer for their ignorance.
lol. I have had people tell me how lucky I am and life is not fair because I have a big expensive house all bought and paid for, and a nice car etc. And they do not. Nothing to do with luck or fairness. I worked very very hard - 16 hours a day seven days a week for years - and they did not. You also have to get an education and skills, have a lot of responsibility, work hard and save up and invest and risk a lot of money in a business to do well. I saved and they spent it as soon as they got it. I save for things and go without where they spend it all quickly on drugs, drink, holidays, nights out etc.
 
Last edited:
Thinking about this reminds me of high school (American) football.

I never played. It never occurred to me to try out for the team, for a couple reasons.
One, I didn't have the interest. I can see the appeal, I can see why people are into it, but it was just never an interest I had myself.
Two, I always knew I never had the body for it. It was never even up for consideration. Unfortunately I was born into a skinny body. It wouldn't have mattered what weightlifting program I used, or how much protein I ate. I was not going to be able to play football, period. It would not have mattered if I wanted to or not, or how hard I worked or not, or if I had a good attitude about it or not. And if I tried, all I would have gotten out of it is broken bones and concussions - not to mention the humiliation of doing something I was so obviously bad at/unsuited for. It's just as well that I was never interested in playing, and wasn't really hurt that I wasn't able to play.

Can I lift weights and get into better shape? Probably.
Can I lift weights and become a real athlete? Almost certainly not.

Fortunately, most of the time no one will force you to try out for high school football.
If you don't think it's for you, you can opt to not do it and your life won't really suffer for it.

Unfortunately, you can't opt out of capitalism, if you feel like you weren't born with the brain for it.
You can't say capitalism isn't for you, even if it really isn't for you.
And I wish more people, especially people that were good at STEM (which is the thing capitalism values the most, and usually overlaps with business as well), understood this, but they almost always don't. I've noticed there's a strong correlation between STEM ability/interest, and lack of empathy and warmth - something I feel has only increased with time. It's like the more like a machine you are, and less like a person, the more you're suited to this world. I don't think they understand, because they've always been good at the thing the world values, so life has always come easy to them. They've never had to empathize or understand because they've never had to understand what it's like to be bad at things. They've never struggled, they were always the people who "got it". They might be bad at something, but they don't have to worry about doing whatever it is, because they can just do STEM, which the world rewards, allowing them to get through life easily. It's like they are unable, and unwilling, to understand that not everyone has the same abilities and interests that they have, so they can't conceive how someone might not like the system that favors these people, because they just so happen to have the right abilities and interests. If you're not the kind of person that just likes doing one thing over and over again, only has one real interest, and it's usually a practical/real-world/STEM interest, then you're probably going to have a bad time.

These days, it's like if you're not good at or interested in STEM, then you're probably going to have a hard time fitting yourself into this world, and it's going to feel like this world is not for you. You're either not going to be able to do it, or you are but it won't fulfill you, you won't be naturally driven to do it and you really won't enjoy it. But I think this world should be for everyone, not just the STEM people. It's too bad we can't seem to come up with a better way.
 
Last edited:
The genetic lottery isn't fair. The family and social conditions in which people are brought up in aren't equal. That, in combination with opportunity and luck, determines outcomes. Even those who struggled from meager beginnings can't take 100% credit.

'Life isn't fair' is often used to dismiss basic needs.
 
Last edited:
I'm not reading those replies. The nephew CEO. love that answer. I will tweak the 'first world problems' part. I live in the greatest blah blah blah. Hand to mouth, no shelter, ignored life...so not fun. Not Africa staving, but...if you pull that card, sleep for untold nights in the right place according to the season. Eat stale handouts. And get cardio because you can't stay in one location. For me, and only me, it was luck and good fortune. But never think it's all that easy to have a redo. You were close to the bullseye tho.
 
I have had people tell me how lucky I am and life is not fair because I have a big expensive house all bought and paid for...
Yeah, same.
People tell me how "lucky I am" because I have done well financially.
Well, I got some news.
It doesn't mean s**t.
I would rather be dirt poor and look like Channing Tatum than to be me.
Being well off has not given me anything that I want in life.
Young thin petite girls with extremely pretty faces couldn't care less about a guy's "financial success".
I can rent them for an hour or two, but that's about it.
They don't want me.
My life sucks.
 
Yeah, same.
People tell me how "lucky I am" because I have done well financially.
Well, I got some news.
It doesn't mean s**t.
I would rather be dirt poor and look like Channing Tatum than to be me.
Being well off has not given me anything that I want in life.
Young thin petite girls with extremely pretty faces couldn't care less about a guy's "financial success".
I can rent them for an hour or two, but that's about it.
They don't want me.
My life sucks.
I've found that when youve got money and are a professional person with your own business you attract a lot of losers who want you for free board and lodging, money, loans, gifts, advice that others pay for etc is very easy but a waste of my time - youve got nothing in common and they dont respect you, they tell you how lucky you are when they could have been as lucky as you if they had put in time effort and money. I find someone who knows what it is to work very hard to succeed, and risk money on investing, and learn and study to be able to offer skills at a higher rate, is very difficult.
 
The genetic lottery isn't fair. The family and social conditions in which people are brought up in aren't equal. That, in combination with opportunity and luck, determines outcomes. Even those who struggled from meager beginnings can't take 100% credit.

'Life isn't fair' is often used to dismiss basic needs.
Luck? I had to leave school at 15 with no qualifications, love or support. Instead of partying, going out, holidays and watching tv I spent all of my time working and studying and made something of myself. No luck. It was 100% me
 
But I think this world should be for everyone, not just the STEM people.
Hey @TheSkaFish
I like your posts and you've given me some great advice here on this site.
But why all the hate at STEM???
Like I have replied to you before, it's a lucrative career.
Go where the money is.
Simple as that.
I thank GOD for my STEM career.
I'd be a lifelong virgin if not for the money it brought me.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top