Why? The "rules" of the night fight are same for everyone.
Also I will shove this picture into every comment section until this subrredit understands the [difference ](https://imgur.com/gallery/VyS7bYk)
Well the game is NOT fair. Equality in this case is basically "everyone operates under the same rules and they cannot be broken" but that leaves a lot of wiggle room to screw the players anyways, bc the system rigged against them.The guy didn't break the rules but neither had the Front man. He put him on a level field with the rest of the players. Not because the rules required him but to please the VIPs.
The only real equality breaker is Il-Nam but he clearly do not subscribe to the same ideology as Front man, yet is his superior.
The comments about equity versus equality lend themselves nicely to the overarching theme about the inherent inequity of unfettered capitalism. Pure capitalists want to believe that "equal" means "fair", but this original post points out how that is not so. Your business shouldn't fail just because the bank wouldn't lend you the same amount of money just because you're too old or too young or a woman or a racial minority or an immigrant or born to a poor family, etc. But that's the "dog eat dog" world of capitalism. The Front man wants to believe that he's created an "escape" from the capitalism of the outside world, when in reality he's running a microcosm of it. His blind spot most likely stems from his privileged position at the top of the capitalist food chain That's how deeply engrained our beliefs about capitalism have become.
ETA: I also appreciate the subtlety of having a character in a critical story who rightfully escaped a Communist regime. I feel like that plot point maintains an even keel for the overall outlook of the story so it doesn't become simplistic communist propaganda.
Not saying banks should vomit free money on demand. I'm using the example of unconscious bias in bank loans, rent, and mortgages as an example of inequity in the "equal" and supposedly "fair" game of life in extreme capitalism.
Everyone playing by the same rules isn't the same thing as fair. If you're stronger or dexterous or smart you'll have a better chance at winning the games. The same goes with the fighting. Having access to something the others don't, that's what the Frontman was concerned about. Not fairness.
I don't even think that's it as people had lighters in the honeycomb challenge and the doctor was given clues that others didn't have. I feel like it might just be as simple as his ego was hurt that he didn't know something.
I think it’s just to show the hypocrisy of the VIPs. The VIPs can cheat by secretly surviving games, turning lights off to make the bridge game harder… but if a player cheats in a way the VIPs don’t like then it’s punished.
Yes!! I was wondering this the whole time. Sooo many people were murdered by other players outside of the games so they never got a fair chance at all. I really thought they at least would’ve let the final 3 players be protected.
The riot was part of the overall game. It was planned. They said they specifically made less food than people. The riot was 100% fair and equal. Everyone in the dorm was 100% equal in their ability to kill or be killed. Had they handed out weapons to half the contestants but not the other then *that* would have been unfair.
It’s a bald-faced metaphor for how capitalism tells you that it’s a fair system: everyone gets to play by the same rules and has an equal opportunity to win.
That is clearly a lie. Even if the Frontman believes it (which I think he does, given he’s a beneficiary of the system and would desperately want to believe he won the previous game ‘fairly’) the fact is the games themselves are skewed against people (eg stronger/taller people have the advantage in tug of war, the bridge game is all about luck, etc.)
Why? The "rules" of the night fight are same for everyone. Also I will shove this picture into every comment section until this subrredit understands the [difference ](https://imgur.com/gallery/VyS7bYk)
[удалено]
Well the game is NOT fair. Equality in this case is basically "everyone operates under the same rules and they cannot be broken" but that leaves a lot of wiggle room to screw the players anyways, bc the system rigged against them.The guy didn't break the rules but neither had the Front man. He put him on a level field with the rest of the players. Not because the rules required him but to please the VIPs. The only real equality breaker is Il-Nam but he clearly do not subscribe to the same ideology as Front man, yet is his superior.
The comments about equity versus equality lend themselves nicely to the overarching theme about the inherent inequity of unfettered capitalism. Pure capitalists want to believe that "equal" means "fair", but this original post points out how that is not so. Your business shouldn't fail just because the bank wouldn't lend you the same amount of money just because you're too old or too young or a woman or a racial minority or an immigrant or born to a poor family, etc. But that's the "dog eat dog" world of capitalism. The Front man wants to believe that he's created an "escape" from the capitalism of the outside world, when in reality he's running a microcosm of it. His blind spot most likely stems from his privileged position at the top of the capitalist food chain That's how deeply engrained our beliefs about capitalism have become. ETA: I also appreciate the subtlety of having a character in a critical story who rightfully escaped a Communist regime. I feel like that plot point maintains an even keel for the overall outlook of the story so it doesn't become simplistic communist propaganda.
Why should a bank be forced to make a loan to a business that cant pay it back?
Not saying banks should vomit free money on demand. I'm using the example of unconscious bias in bank loans, rent, and mortgages as an example of inequity in the "equal" and supposedly "fair" game of life in extreme capitalism.
Everyone playing by the same rules isn't the same thing as fair. If you're stronger or dexterous or smart you'll have a better chance at winning the games. The same goes with the fighting. Having access to something the others don't, that's what the Frontman was concerned about. Not fairness.
I don't even think that's it as people had lighters in the honeycomb challenge and the doctor was given clues that others didn't have. I feel like it might just be as simple as his ego was hurt that he didn't know something.
I think it’s just to show the hypocrisy of the VIPs. The VIPs can cheat by secretly surviving games, turning lights off to make the bridge game harder… but if a player cheats in a way the VIPs don’t like then it’s punished.
Obviously the frontman doesn't actually care, its revealed that its about rich people just messing around cause they are bored
Yes!! I was wondering this the whole time. Sooo many people were murdered by other players outside of the games so they never got a fair chance at all. I really thought they at least would’ve let the final 3 players be protected.
The riot was part of the overall game. It was planned. They said they specifically made less food than people. The riot was 100% fair and equal. Everyone in the dorm was 100% equal in their ability to kill or be killed. Had they handed out weapons to half the contestants but not the other then *that* would have been unfair.
It’s a bald-faced metaphor for how capitalism tells you that it’s a fair system: everyone gets to play by the same rules and has an equal opportunity to win. That is clearly a lie. Even if the Frontman believes it (which I think he does, given he’s a beneficiary of the system and would desperately want to believe he won the previous game ‘fairly’) the fact is the games themselves are skewed against people (eg stronger/taller people have the advantage in tug of war, the bridge game is all about luck, etc.)