zlacker

>>tysone+(OP)
It's not like meritocracy is completely unrelated to real life, it matters in a certain regime. However, if like Vanessa, you're born to lesser circumstances, you just cannot escape poverty by just working harder. Similarly, if you are born to very well off standards, even if you're a dope and spend money from Dad's inheritance on cocaine, sure, you won't be successful but you'll still have a net of some kind. You can always improve your lot, but where you start has a large impact on how much of phase space you can reach, so to say.

I think the mentality is shifting a little as millenials and gen z are slowly letting go of the meritocratic myth, but blaming internal motivations more than context is a problem in the American conception of the world we still suffer from as a nation. The inability of us to accept that our actions are not the only determining things in our lives seriously limit our ability to fully comprehend the world and how it really works which leads us to thinking ideas like work requirements are actually sane rather than completely counterproductive.

>>noober+kH
The diabetic Vanessa could have chosen not to have her first baby at 16.

>>lr4444+Fb1
You have no idea the kind of mental state, upbringing and understanding of the world Vanessa had at 16. One of the big reasons teen girls get pregnant is a desperate hope to fill the psychological void in their hearts created by neglectful parents.

>>cm2012+Vc1
That does not absolve her of her irresponsibility. 99% of 16-year-olds realize having a kid is a bad idea. She made her bed, and now she sleeps in it. I can empathize with her situation, but I can not empathize with anyone saying she is not herself at least partly responsible.

>>hhjink+Kd1
A modern wealthy society that allows a bad-but-understandable move by a 16 year old girl to basically wreck her entire life, is a cruel society.

Also don't overlook that America is also supposed to be a country of redemption and second chances, and that we as a society derive strength from that. We foster risk-taking, and we don't throw away people who seriously screw up - but rather capitalize on the fact that those who have overcome serious mistakes often become formidable humans. This is one of the bright spots of American culture, lets not throw it away for the cheap thrill of standing in self-righteous judgment.

>>m_faye+Qg1
At 16, she could have chosen to do a million things that would have messed up her life. Kids can choose to hurt themselves in many ways. We can’t “not allow” kids to do jumps on their dirt bikes or venture into danger in other ways. Once they are given freedom from constant adult supervision, they have to act in self interest. You think that being 16 somehow absolves them from the responsibility of surviving. That’s ridiculous and unnatural.

>>daddyo+pq1
No, we should precisely look to let kids "down easy" from their errors, rather than ban activities that can lead to those errors, for the very same ends that you're advocating. When too many possible mistakes have big irreversible penalties, everyone becomes much more risk averse, and the society becomes boring and rigid. See: helicopter parenting.

>>m_faye+3M1
Helicopter parenting basically augments the kids decision making. The parent guides them through everything. When the consequences are real, even permanent sometimes, and the it’s up to the kids to do the right thing, and they know it, and they’ve been educated properly on it, then you get a person who is healthy. They develop risk assessment and management and use it in their adult life where, surprise, you have to make essentially life or death decisions every day. You can rack up 30k on your credit card in a single swipe and, for a lot of people, that would be a kind of death. Almost every decision we make has irreversible consequences. The earlier kids learn to deal with that, the better. As long as they are educated and prepared in some way.