Well, the market rejected your skills, so that's how free market capitalism works. Get good, then get employed.

But no, people only take the parts of insert preferred political flavor here that they seem beneficial to them and they discard the parts that are not.

▲

happytoexplain 8 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no such thing as free market absolutism, obviously. "The market" isn't conscious, and didn't do anything. People did - and now people are doing another thing. Prevailing opinion is that this should be regulated, in some form. It already is, in fact. The call is for changing regulation. There's nothing unreasonable about that, as a concept.

And yes, of course people take political stances that are beneficial to them, to their families, to their communities, to their country, in their (maybe wrong) opinion. Again, totally reasonable. You're suggesting that people should pick one of a few political flavors and blindly support every single thing that leans toward that flavor, or else they're a hypocrite? That's ridiculous. In fact, it's what's killing my country.

	▲	RealityVoid 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, I think , fundamentally, I agree with you. The part that irks me the most is the hypocrisy I feel around these issues. Essentially, people pick points that are convenient for them and dress them in moral justifications. People take opportunities that helped them or their families, and then demand others not be given these opportunities. People take a stance only when it advantages them personally and quickly discard it when it's not advantageous anymore. Not because they realized it's wrong or they were mistaken, but because now it's not personally useful. People get up a ladder and then quickly pull it up. I am obviously an idiot since I believe in moral consistency and I believe the the pie is not fixed and that we can increase the welfare of everybody. Such a fool I am.