Al Gore has not done us any favors in publicising that phrase. He's managed to turn both "inconvenience" and "truth" into dysphemisms, touting truth as a threat and inconvenience as deserved punishment. Making life convenient for other people is supposed to be a virtue. Courtesy demands it. Making life difficult for other people, also referred to as making "hard choices," is not a praiseworthy attitude. Though politicians who see themselves as secular ministers seem to think it is. At a minimum, inconvenience, they suggest, is supposed to "toughen people up," preparing them for the fray, letting them prove they can "take it."
Despite the recent transference,"taking" is a positive in the Cons' playbook. They take without giving as compensation for having taken the slings and arrows of fate. Pummeled by their life experience, they seem to console themselves by taking revenge and everything else that comes their way. Perhaps deprivation has made them greedy.
I suppose they could, like the spider in her web, be considered passive predators -- trappers, not hunters. So, they exploit suckers, who deserve what they get because they, too, don't give anything back.
Giving back is an interesting concept. It's a sort of reversal of fortune. But, it's all good -- the initial getting from generous donors and passing it on to others. Surplus economics. And, instead of being a happenstance, fortune is a matter of intention -- Chinese fortune cookies wishing the recipient well. Just as exploitation is not a happenstance, neither are generosity and the convenience it spawns.
Convenience is the product of a generous spirit. The only problem with it is that it's hard to notice. So, it has to be taught.
Good manners serve to promote the interests of others.