"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.

Revengineer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
172
Reaction score
1
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.

Or my favorite, when you're upset about something and someone pulls the "first world problems" card. Discussion ended. Can't argue against it, and 99% of the time it makes you feel worse. But it's sure nice for them to feel morally superior.

I get it. We're not clones of each other, and as a result there will always be some unfairness inherent in life. Some people will always be taller than others and that's that. But there's a difference between wanting to minimize the effects of injustice and passively accepting them as unchangeable laws of life. Of course at this point in the conversation you start getting into personal interpretations about "responsibility" and "fairness" and everyone ends up getting really nasty towards each other.

Not sure if I'm making any sense here... I guess I'm just generally frustrated at the world right now.
 
It depends on what you're discussing. maybe you'r mixing up fairness with basic justice. Sometimes it isn't a matter of fairness to begin with. Friendly attention from others for example, an understandable desire, life is generally miserable without.. but not an entitlement. Maybe people have prejudiced unfair attitudes but trying to make them feel obliged to be 'fair' just doesn't seem to work. Appeals to fairness or guilt trips - people are going to think of fairness in terms of social relationships - are ineffectual because people are going to do what they want and avoid the things they don't and how you feel is mostly irrelevant (I'm slowly accepting this)
 
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 honeysuckle-eating grin ever, "life isn't fair :D." People who do that need to suffer for their ignorance.
 
"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.
 
Life isn't fair and it never will be, hard to accept but everyone has to deal with it somehow.
 
So, when you're complaining about your problems, would you prefer people tell you that life is fair?
 
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?
 
ippi said:
Life isn't fair and it never will be, hard to accept but everyone has to deal with it somehow.

That's true.
I think that part of the human experience entails coming to terms with our own limitations and being happy with ourselves. I don't believe anyone can deal with stress by having it rubbed in our faces like this. Invalidation is actually a form of emotional abuse. Not that you are doing that... It's just a phrase often used in all the wrong ways. It's nice to see it used tactfully for once.
 
Unfortunately it's true, in most situations.

But I understand what you mean, it's just so easy for someone to say this, in fact, I think it's a preference over I don't know what to say or I don't know how to respond to that.
 
perfanoff said:
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.

^This. +1
 
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.
 
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.
 
It's not fair and I don't like it. I can not like it if I want to and so can you. Why should I have to like something just because it's the way it is. You can't stop people from regurgitating empty platitudes but your entitled to your opinions and feelings. Have you ever read 'Harrison Bergeron'? Everyone thinks that kind of world would be such an atrocity and the same with 'Brave new world', but I think compensating for the unfairness of nature, even if not a perfect system, is altruistic and would transcend our species from being slaves to our drive to dominate and procreate mindlessly at any cost, as we pretend to exercise free will.
 
Life is like a poker game, we live based on the cards we are dealt.
Some were born with a Royal Flush.
Others were born with a toilet flush.
 
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.

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.

The world has a 1% growth rate, recently reached the mark of 7 billion.

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

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.
 
When you compare yourself to others, that is primarily where unhappiness lies.

Don't compare yourself to anyone but you, and you will be the happiest you that could ever be.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top