Erynn Brook
@ErynnBrook 3 months, 3 weeks ago 328 views

When you really think about it, it’s pretty weird that we’ve built an entire society around being able to decide who deserves what.

We want to tell people what they deserve to earn, buy, make, be, say, believe, enjoy. Where they can live. Who they can love.

We even do this to kids through the story of Santa Claus and his naughty or nice list.

And we’re all just trucking along like this is okay.
We do it to ourselves. “I deserve a break”, “I deserve this cookie”, “I deserve a promotion”.

Why are we so afraid of wants and needs? Why do we frame it in terms of this moral currency? It’s weird.
We've traded our freedom to have wants and needs on the basis that we just have them for the ability to police others' wants and needs through whether or not they are deserving of the things they're asking for. But to do that we have to play the same game and be "more deserving."
I never said which society or how long we’ve been doing it. I’m sure you could trace this ideology back to agriculture at the very least.

https://t.co/QeguvRv3Vn
But seriously, what if you don’t, in terms of moral currency, “deserve a raise”? What if you just need one? What if you just don’t make enough money to live and you need more?
Let’s be real, capitalism isn’t dying tomorrow, and people need things today. We’ve decided on this abstract system of value without ever defining its worth.
If I hold a door open for someone, do I deserve a muffin? If I smile 50 times a day do I deserve a longer break?

The answer, in the current system, depends on what others might think. Not only at a political level but at a social level. That’s fucking weird.
But we agree to it because if we deserve enough, some day, maybe we can decide who deserves what. Even in small ways like deciding whether or not to give our spare change away. That’s the deal we strike. For that power. Judgment.
This whole concept goes beyond discussions of capitalism and the free market. We believe certain people don’t deserve to exist in certain spaces. I mean, I can get harassed on twitter and told that I deserve it because I’m on twitter.
I’m starting to feel like I’ve attracted the philosobros with this thread and I really wish they would read the whole thing before commenting. 🤷🏻‍♀️

More from Erynn Brook

More from Society

I want to talk about this thing.

No not Piers Morgan, I give no shits about him.

I mean this thing of criticizing women’s sensuality and then saying that they should get by on just their talent. Cause we see it everywhere...


And it comes up in a lot of different spaces:

And it comes up in a lot of different ways:

It’s interesting because we know that psychologically speaking, conventionally attractive people are better received.

Attraction can shift as you get to know someone on an individual level, but overall our society privileges people who look good.

I don’t understand the question?

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".