#1 ·
I was thinking about this today while watching some old clips of local derbies. There's this unwritten rule in a lot of cities that even if you absolutely loathe a certain organization or group, you still step up when they're staring down the barrel of total collapse. It’s about preserving the culture of the city, right?
Lately, it feels like that sense of shared responsibility is evaporating. It’s becoming much more "every entity for itself." If a local institution is failing due to their own mismanagement, people are much quicker to say "not my problem" than they were twenty or thirty years ago. It’s a colder way to live, I guess, but maybe it’s just how things work now.
I used to think that supporting a rival in a moment of crisis was a sign of class, but now I wonder if it's just enabling bad leadership. If you bail out a mess, you're just setting them up to fail again.
Do you think we've lost that sense of local solidarity, or is it just more logical to let failing entities go under?
Lately, it feels like that sense of shared responsibility is evaporating. It’s becoming much more "every entity for itself." If a local institution is failing due to their own mismanagement, people are much quicker to say "not my problem" than they were twenty or thirty years ago. It’s a colder way to live, I guess, but maybe it’s just how things work now.
I used to think that supporting a rival in a moment of crisis was a sign of class, but now I wonder if it's just enabling bad leadership. If you bail out a mess, you're just setting them up to fail again.
Do you think we've lost that sense of local solidarity, or is it just more logical to let failing entities go under?