Income inequality is the elephant in the room. No, scratch that, it’s the entire herd. The rich keep grazing on returns that grow faster than the economy itself, while the rest of us fight over scraps. The rules of society start bending in ways that nobody admits out loud. As Piketty has shown, capital accumulates faster than wages. It creates a feedback loop that is brutally efficient at concentrating wealth at the top. ...
Picture a journalist, a scientist, or even your neighbour declaring with solemn authority: “I am being objective.” Dignified, is it not? Objective, impartial, fact-driven, like a well-polished broom sweeping all bias into the corner. Only, as with most magical brooms, it has a particular corner it prefers: the one that keeps the powerful comfortable and the inconvenient quiet. Objectivity can sometimes be used to avoid confronting ethical dilemmas. And claiming objectivity is rarely neutral. Like neutrality, it carries consequences. Often, it shields those already in power while quietly silencing the vulnerable. ...
Imagine standing on the pavement, observing an injustice unfold. Perhaps a villain is performing egregiously bad deeds, or a bureaucrat is quietly rearranging paperwork in a way that ruins lives. You shrug. You mutter, “Not my circus, not my monkeys,” and continue scrolling through social media. This is the practical magic of neutrality: invisible, polite, and utterly useful if your goal is to help the oppressor. Desmond Tutu, who knew more than a little about elephants on mice, explained it in no uncertain terms: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” And just to make sure nobody missed the metaphor, he added: “If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” ...