Yes this is common knowledge. Most of us live within a given social hierarchy, and this effect is part of being a participant by default. We understand it intuitively.

"Rules for thee but not for me."

"There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

Senators build their wealth by millions while "working" for the public, and nobody bats an eye. We all know how it works.

It's why some celebrities are so loved when they don't fit the mold. People give up their seat on the subway every day, but when Keanu Reeves does it, he is venerated. Most people don't have any care for the people who run charities, but Dolly Parton is practically sainted for hers. All high-status people need to do is not be wicked and we are awed by it.

> "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

Do you know the source of that quote and the context? It was Frank Wilhoit explaining the core of the problem with conservatism. He wrote it when proposing anti-conservatism. To quote it as a general rule of life presumes that conservatism is the only way humans can organize a society.

I think it's a matter of reach. Most ordinary people's good deeds have a small audience—the 'N' in a 1:N spread is limited. But the bigger the fame, the larger the audience becomes. From that perspective, when Keanu Reeves does something good, the number of people influenced by that act is much larger. I believe humans are creatures shaped by their environment—and they are influenced by it. So it's socially acknowledged that piling up these good actions is beneficial, and the greater the influence of such actions, the larger the impact they have. Of course, this is just my hypothesis.

[flagged]