johnkvallis on Nostr: I sometimes use it as a stand-in or catch-all for those people who act dishonestly, ...

I sometimes use it as a stand-in or catch-all for those people who act dishonestly, unfairly, or immorally at the expense of others, knowingly or not. There are perhaps many ways Gigi’s ‘Us’ answer could be interpreted, but I see one as the inevitability of everyone being a ‘they’ (pejoratively) to someone, mostly by ignorance. For example, I might consider those who knowingly and selfishly perpetuate an unfair monetary system, at the expense of those coerced (legal tender laws) to use it, to be a ‘they’. Similarly, the mother of a young boy ‘forced’ to work in cobalt mines in response to my demand for the phone I’m writing this on, may consider me a ‘they’. Ultimately, though I sometimes (lazily) use it myself, I think if we are to criticize anyone or anything, it is not only more accurate, but far more useful, to be as specific as possible when we do so. This allows us to isolate the issue, and devise a solution, without catching in the net of our condemnation those who aren’t deserving of it, and de-legitimizing our capacity and reliability for identifying the true cause and culprits of problems in the process. Of course, one may go even further and simply come to the conclusion that even being specific with one’s criticisms is a sub-optimal (and again, lazy) approach, and one ought to focus entirely on the solutions (to perceived problems) which are within one’s capacity or control - basically just adhering to Bucky Fullers advice regarding building solutions which make problems (be they people or systems) obsolete. I see the latter as being the most legitimate and effective, and try to use the former less and less.