4 ms·

> There is a moral failing in our country where the pursuit of money is seen as the objective optimal thing to do. But it's very reasonable to look at how money

by Helmet 9y ago

> There is a moral failing in our country where the pursuit of money is seen as the objective optimal thing to do. But it's very reasonable to look at how money changes people, and to turn away from such a lifestyle in disgust. It's also very easy and PC to venerate the poor out of some misguided sense of pity or moral absolutism. One could look at poor communities, and, as you said "turn away from such a lifestyle in disgust" and choose enrich themselves. I'm also not entirely, or even in the least bit, convinced that our society, institutions, social structures, and general well-being would be better off WITHOUT class distinctions. Going deeper, they seem to me to be an essential component of civilization, one of the many necessary "glues" of social order. edit: This site is slowly turning into Reddit - contrarian opinions need not apply. Instead of down-votes, why not rebut what I said? It's not like the matter is settled, and the last couple times the populous tried to "abolish" social classes, mass terror followed.

balthasar 9y ago
Its very difficult to convince people who are immersed in a certain way of living and a certain social order that there exists alternatives.
- Helmet 9y ago
  Class distinction and hierarchy are precisely the sort of social mechanisms that convince people that there exists alternatives to certain modes of living (class aspiration).
  - balthasar 9y ago
    What they are going to create a new class? Move up to the next one? Class mobility is a fallacy that was invented to support the hierarchy. Its not an alternative system in any sense.
    - Helmet 9y ago
      > Move up to the next one? Yes > Class mobility is a fallacy This is patently false. Social mobility is entirely possible, although it has gotten harder since the 1980's, but that wasn't your claim. > that was invented to support the hierarchy The hierarchy doesn't need "support". Class and social hierarchy has been observed in every culture since time immemorial. The radical and unfounded claim is the notion that we can "remove" it in any meaningful sense. > Its not an alternative system in any sense. Moving into a new social class impacts your life in every conceivable way, from the way you speak, dress, behave, to the job you perform. On an individual level, it absolutely would resemble "systemic" changes to both one's material and immaterial life.
      - balthasar 9y ago
        Exactly "systemic" changes. Changes relating to the system you are in.
ikeyany 9y ago
> It's also very easy and PC to venerate the poor out of some misguided sense of pity or moral absolutism. No one genuinely aspires to be destitute. The poor are seen as noble in some aspects, but that's often a defense mechanism from the extreme wealth on the other site of the spectrum. > I'm also not entirely, or even in the least bit, convinced that our society, institutions, social structures, and general well-being would be better off WITHOUT class distinctions. I did not mean to imply that we should therefore demolish all class distinctions. But we certainly need introspection, and unfortunately rich perspectives are popularized by default (see film and social media examples cited earlier). Just because classes are necessary does not mean our attitude towards classes is healthy.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>edit: This site is slowly turning into Reddit - contrarian opinions need not apply. Instead of down-votes, why not rebut what I said? It's not like the matter is settled, and the last couple times the populous tried to "abolish" social classes, mass terror followed. Now now relax. You're in a thread about class and you're saying that class distinctions are good because they glue our society together. You don't think those people who have experienced the bottom are going to have a reaction to that? >It's also very easy and PC to venerate the poor out of some misguided sense of pity or moral absolutism. Sure but the veneration is usually weak, it's akin to the 'noble savage' - the 'hardworking blue-collar.' It's veneration at a distance, contact between the wealthy and the poor is frequently uncomfortable for both. >One could look at poor communities, and, as you said "turn away from such a lifestyle in disgust" and choose enrich themselves. You make it sound so easy! But it's not, growing up in a poor community frequently means growing up in poor schools with poor opportunities, no mentors and rare role models. >I'm also not entirely, or even in the least bit, convinced that our society, institutions, social structures, and general well-being would be better off WITHOUT class distinctions. Going deeper, they seem to me to be an essential component of civilization, one of the many necessary "glues" of social order. Would you say the same thing about racial distinctions? If not, why?
- Helmet 9y ago
  > Now now relax. We can have a sensible discussion without condescension. > You're in a thread about class and you're saying that class distinctions are good......You don't think those people who have experienced the bottom are going to have a reaction to that? I've "experienced bottom" and I don't really find what I said to be inflammatory or offensive, if we're willing to be honest with ourselves, it's rather quite self-evident. >You make it sound so easy! But it's not, growing up in a poor community frequently means growing up in poor schools with poor opportunities, no mentors and rare role models. I'm familiar with how "easy" or not it is - I've lived it. If you graduate high school and don't have a kid before you are married, you're pretty much guaranteed to enter the middle-class. > Would you say the same thing about racial distinctions? If not, why? What exactly do you mean? Do I think that racially homogeneous societies exhibit more social order? I don't know, that to me sounds like a question for a social scientist or sociologist. I don't find it to be analogous to what we're talking about here though, as one cannot change their race, but many are socially mobile.

by Helmet 9y ago

balthasar 9y ago

Its very difficult to convince people who are immersed in a certain way of living and a certain social order that there exists alternatives.

Helmet 9y ago
Class distinction and hierarchy are precisely the sort of social mechanisms that convince people that there exists alternatives to certain modes of living (class aspiration).
- balthasar 9y ago
  What they are going to create a new class? Move up to the next one? Class mobility is a fallacy that was invented to support the hierarchy. Its not an alternative system in any sense.
  - Helmet 9y ago
    > Move up to the next one? Yes > Class mobility is a fallacy This is patently false. Social mobility is entirely possible, although it has gotten harder since the 1980's, but that wasn't your claim. > that was invented to support the hierarchy The hierarchy doesn't need "support". Class and social hierarchy has been observed in every culture since time immemorial. The radical and unfounded claim is the notion that we can "remove" it in any meaningful sense. > Its not an alternative system in any sense. Moving into a new social class impacts your life in every conceivable way, from the way you speak, dress, behave, to the job you perform. On an individual level, it absolutely would resemble "systemic" changes to both one's material and immaterial life.
    - balthasar 9y ago
      Exactly "systemic" changes. Changes relating to the system you are in.

ikeyany 9y ago

> It's also very easy and PC to venerate the poor out of some misguided sense of pity or moral absolutism. No one genuinely aspires to be destitute. The poor are seen as noble in some aspects, but that's often a defense mechanism from the extreme wealth on the other site of the spectrum. > I'm also not entirely, or even in the least bit, convinced that our society, institutions, social structures, and general well-being would be better off WITHOUT class distinctions. I did not mean to imply that we should therefore demolish all class distinctions. But we certainly need introspection, and unfortunately rich perspectives are popularized by default (see film and social media examples cited earlier). Just because classes are necessary does not mean our attitude towards classes is healthy.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>edit: This site is slowly turning into Reddit - contrarian opinions need not apply. Instead of down-votes, why not rebut what I said? It's not like the matter is settled, and the last couple times the populous tried to "abolish" social classes, mass terror followed. Now now relax. You're in a thread about class and you're saying that class distinctions are good because they glue our society together. You don't think those people who have experienced the bottom are going to have a reaction to that? >It's also very easy and PC to venerate the poor out of some misguided sense of pity or moral absolutism. Sure but the veneration is usually weak, it's akin to the 'noble savage' - the 'hardworking blue-collar.' It's veneration at a distance, contact between the wealthy and the poor is frequently uncomfortable for both. >One could look at poor communities, and, as you said "turn away from such a lifestyle in disgust" and choose enrich themselves. You make it sound so easy! But it's not, growing up in a poor community frequently means growing up in poor schools with poor opportunities, no mentors and rare role models. >I'm also not entirely, or even in the least bit, convinced that our society, institutions, social structures, and general well-being would be better off WITHOUT class distinctions. Going deeper, they seem to me to be an essential component of civilization, one of the many necessary "glues" of social order. Would you say the same thing about racial distinctions? If not, why?

Helmet 9y ago
> Now now relax. We can have a sensible discussion without condescension. > You're in a thread about class and you're saying that class distinctions are good......You don't think those people who have experienced the bottom are going to have a reaction to that? I've "experienced bottom" and I don't really find what I said to be inflammatory or offensive, if we're willing to be honest with ourselves, it's rather quite self-evident. >You make it sound so easy! But it's not, growing up in a poor community frequently means growing up in poor schools with poor opportunities, no mentors and rare role models. I'm familiar with how "easy" or not it is - I've lived it. If you graduate high school and don't have a kid before you are married, you're pretty much guaranteed to enter the middle-class. > Would you say the same thing about racial distinctions? If not, why? What exactly do you mean? Do I think that racially homogeneous societies exhibit more social order? I don't know, that to me sounds like a question for a social scientist or sociologist. I don't find it to be analogous to what we're talking about here though, as one cannot change their race, but many are socially mobile.