I didn't say anything 'ought' to be anything, so no stumbling occurred.
I said that a double standard is being applied. The payment-for-interview concept is being rejected because it links relationships and outcomes. However, nearly everything in society links relationships to outcomes. It makes no sense to say that this one thing is stupid-evil because of that, and not comment at all on all the other things that work the same way.
If you want to set your standard that "society should not allow anything that links relationships to outcomes" then do that honestly across the board. And acknowledge how much you need to destroy.
If you don't want to acknowledge that, then this argument makes no sense to apply only here. It's an isolated demand for fairness.
And it was never about how "improving things is hard". This isn't like studying for a test where you "just try harder" to get a better outcome. It's an engineering problem with tradeoffs - to gain one thing you must sacrifice others.
Changing society means sacrificing things - you need to acknowledge how much you want to sacrifice to serve your utopian ideals. And I can point out how dangerous and naive that makes you, just like all your utopian forebears dreaming of a socialist heaven.
Have you ever inherited an ungodly mess of a code base? Did you say "terrible code is just the way things are"? Or did you apply new standards to new code while slooooowly fixing the old code?
It also seems to me that you are arguing with a straw man you have constructed. Literally nobody in this entire thread had defended the status quo. Your standards seem to require people to be actively tearing down society due to it's injustices before they're allowed to offer a critique of an old problem in a new format
I said that a double standard is being applied. The payment-for-interview concept is being rejected because it links relationships and outcomes. However, nearly everything in society links relationships to outcomes. It makes no sense to say that this one thing is stupid-evil because of that, and not comment at all on all the other things that work the same way.
If you want to set your standard that "society should not allow anything that links relationships to outcomes" then do that honestly across the board. And acknowledge how much you need to destroy.
If you don't want to acknowledge that, then this argument makes no sense to apply only here. It's an isolated demand for fairness.
And it was never about how "improving things is hard". This isn't like studying for a test where you "just try harder" to get a better outcome. It's an engineering problem with tradeoffs - to gain one thing you must sacrifice others.
Changing society means sacrificing things - you need to acknowledge how much you want to sacrifice to serve your utopian ideals. And I can point out how dangerous and naive that makes you, just like all your utopian forebears dreaming of a socialist heaven.