[philipov]

It's not just a rhetorical efficiency though. Phrasing it that way makes it feel like it's a lot easier to change, cause we can imagine personally overcoming a single person.

That broader human "we" is the deterministic historical process that is insurmountable for any one person. It can only be contested with a countervailing historical process when people organize and cooperate, and that's a lot harder to get rolling than just calling your congressperson.

[kelnos]

I would venture to guess, though, that a very small, single-digit percentage (possibly even sub-one-percent) of all-people-ever made things this way. A vanishingly small number of people have the influence to shape "what work means" to this degree. Yes, people going along with things, or even supporting things (because someone in power told them to) plays a big part; the puppetmasters do need some amount of consent and compliance from the masses. But the drivers of change are few.

[tekknik]

It’s a rewording of a Steve Jobs quote (not sure where, if anywhere, he got it from). Essentially it means rather than find reasons to disengage, get out and do something to help promote positive change. If everyone does this, then there’s you’re aggregate.