Seems more like a shitpost. There's lots of randomness documented in scientific fields; when the randomness causes an outcome we like it's called "luck" and when we don't like it it's called "unlucky".
A few people in here conflating randomness with luck, as if the existence of probabilistic outcomes means that a person can have luck. Some people have fortunate outcomes from probabilistic processes and call that good luck. Some people: negative, and bad. The fortunate (too often) deny the probabilistic nature of the process, and call the unfortunate "weak". The unfortunate decry the inequity of the outcomes and call the fortunate the benefactors of unearned luck.
Ron is doing a great job of demonstrating unscientific, motivated reasoning, since acknowledging the possibility of unfortunate outcomes for the "strong" undermines the entitlements of the fortunate. Which can be very damaging to their psyche/ego.
The problem our society faces is that outcomes often aren't probabilistic enough. The main determinants of fortune are too often not luck, but the ability of one's parents to create opportunity for, and invest in/ support their children. The people that end up with favorable life outcomes have more ability to do the preceding, and/or reinforce systems that increase the probability of their children having fortunate outcomes (ie decrease the probabilistic nature of the favourability of life outcomes).
The meme is a bit of physics and a bit of sociology.
