But, more importantly, it's generally not something that can be done on a timeframe that would actually benefit you and solve your immediate problem. Yes, we should be fixing systemic problems at proper scale, but meanwhile we still have to function within the current messy state of affairs.
When it comes to me and my personal life, I do my best to find what I could be doing differently. I try to find the blame for my problems in myself, because it's the place I can actually make changes.
When thinking about policy or culture, it's the opposite; I seek systemic solutions and look to where there are systemic inefficiencies.
The reason for this fairly bipolar thinking is inertia; I'm only going to be around for so long and I don't have time to wait for the cruise liner of human society to change heading - so I get my run in on the deck. Then I go yell at the captain for getting us lost at sea.
If someone is "poor and fat", telling them to advocate for a less car dependent society isn't helpful.
Practical advice and understanding societal root causes are really two different activities, and people tend to seamlessly slip between them.
Cruel optimism is personal advice. Lazy pessimism is academic analysis.
By that same metric, advocating a person wait for a less car dependent society with accessible public transport is terrible advice for the average fat and poor person.
No hypothetical advice can pass a "No True Scotsman" test.
If no hypothetical advice can pass a "No True Sctosman" test, stop giving hypothetical advice to the simplest example of a complex problem.
I think we might agree, but just be coming at it from different ends.
>stop giving hypothetical advice to the simplest example of a complex problem.
Surely we agree that a lot of fat people could benefit from eating less and exercising, correct? We could debate what proportion of people fall into the simplest example, but that is less interesting. What is interesting more interesting to me is when you think advice can be given and what kind:
Are you suggesting that nobody should ever give this advice to eat less and exercise more?
Are you suggesting that any advice that ascribes individual agency and control is inappropriate?
Are you suggesting that only discussing the complex socio-systemic causes is appropriate?
Can you say "fat people who are physically and mentally capable would benefit from eating less than exercising"?
What, specifically, are the harms this is trying to avoid? Does it avoid people incapable of exercises accidentally injuring themselves? People blaming themselves when they have no ability to exercise and no control over their diet?
What's confusing about that point?
All I can do is guess at the reasons why.
For example, inapplicable advice might lead to collateral damage like someone blaming themselves for not exercising when they are wheelchair bound. This all assumes that anyone who hears the advice can't decide if it is applicable to them or not.
Less charitably, I wonder if you are reacting negatively to the idea that people should feel responsible for their own behavior, and this is the Crux of our difference.
You're reading too much into this. I just want advice to be useful. I consider advice useful when it's able to be used by the people it applies to. Generic advice fails to be able to be used by a large subset of people it applies to, and therefore generic advice isn't useful, and therefore I think it's bad advice.
Think of it like this:
Person A: "If you're new to programming, just start with javascript."
Person B: "But what if they want to start in game development, finance programming, or data science instead? Javascript isn't that helpful to them. I think you should be more specific. 'New To Programming' is too broad of a field."
Person A: "Oh, so you don't think people should feel responsible for your own behavior?"
Person A is clearly projecting nonsense at person B, who is just pointing out the advice is too broad. That's it.
However, it is a poor solutioning to actually improving your conditions.
You see this kind of illogical thinking from unhinged school shooters.