In arguments I noticed a bad loop / split in the road (innocently).

When talking about solving something one way goes to solving something overall and the other just keep the current bad thing or 'normal' going.

There is a fork in the road or bad loop where you (2 or more people) are talking about something and one route seeks to come completely out of that overall loop and the other way is already feeding and compounding the problem.

So throw problem in the way of people and they might not see it's the thrower are the problem, not just what is in front of them day to day. This can be something not obvious even helping people while it's not really helping them (it's a fascia or another way of flanking people)

Will write more later, but the common end phrase which is my proof in the pattern is typically someone who agrees with you in almost anything, comes to you complaining but then says
"but you've got to eat"
(which is true) but is never looking to accept need for solving that and almost never looking to ever solve the overall problem probably because the banks 'feed them' (debt)

I respect that banks are hard to solve but being obviously is such cheating bad games require a certain sense of 'it was never straight' type of acceptance and yes 'life is pointless like that'.
Being crushed under money and asked to pay for greed is still not the way which I think many people can't reach if they are not mentally able to imagine it... even when in conversation they accept the sub-points and believe somewhat it shouldn't be like that...