3 ms·

Your saying that I do doesn't make it so. You should read more carefully. Look at is absolutely as simple as this: the interests of the rich and the nonrich are

Your saying that I do doesn't make it so. You should read more carefully. Look at is absolutely as simple as this: the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds, yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it that their interests are served. A society so structured is unjust, fragile, and generally suboptimal. Such societies lend themselves to demogougery and collapse. One needbt even resort to claims of moral and ethical failure on the part of those who have power to conclude this thing, and yet it is also true that power and wealth have deletrious effects on a number of features of that which we might call virtue, including empathy.

Consultant32452 9y ago
>the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds This is not universally true. It is not true across individuals among the rich/nonrich nor is it true across specific agenda items. This caricature you've created for these two groups is called classism. You are no better than the people who think all poor people are stupid or lazy. >yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it that their interests are served. Okay, let's talk about campaign finance reform. Or is making sure there's no rich people more important to you than making sure everyone has equal political power?
- your-nanny 9y ago
  Systematically does not mean universally. It means, at a minimum, that their interests diverge non randomly. Saying that rich and nonrich have different interests is not controversial, except to those intent on denying what is obviously true. Either you are ill equipped to engage in a discussion on this topic or you are being utterly disingenuous; certainly you have misrepresented what I have said in ways that push a rather tired narrative, one trotted out every time someone pushes back on the status quo of enormous wealth disparity by noting that it has serious negative consequences.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    >one trotted out every time someone pushes back on the status quo of enormous wealth disparity by noting that it has serious negative consequences. You just can't help yourself. Once again you express more hatred for the rich than you do concern for the wellbeing of the poor. I'm not denying that there are consequences to wealth or income disparity. I just think you don't appear to care about the wellbeing of the poor beyond the minimal lip-service you have to pay it to justify voicing your hatred for the rich.
  - squeegee5 9y ago
    Your class warfare demagoguery is entertaining. The entirety of notable human civilization is defined by exploitation, and nobody who matters will ever care. Except politicians who will use your whining and vote to do whatever they were planning to do anyways. Vast inequality is, and always has been, the mark of a great civilization.

Consultant32452 9y ago

>the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds This is not universally true. It is not true across individuals among the rich/nonrich nor is it true across specific agenda items. This caricature you've created for these two groups is called classism. You are no better than the people who think all poor people are stupid or lazy. >yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it that their interests are served. Okay, let's talk about campaign finance reform. Or is making sure there's no rich people more important to you than making sure everyone has equal political power?

your-nanny 9y ago
Systematically does not mean universally. It means, at a minimum, that their interests diverge non randomly. Saying that rich and nonrich have different interests is not controversial, except to those intent on denying what is obviously true. Either you are ill equipped to engage in a discussion on this topic or you are being utterly disingenuous; certainly you have misrepresented what I have said in ways that push a rather tired narrative, one trotted out every time someone pushes back on the status quo of enormous wealth disparity by noting that it has serious negative consequences.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >one trotted out every time someone pushes back on the status quo of enormous wealth disparity by noting that it has serious negative consequences. You just can't help yourself. Once again you express more hatred for the rich than you do concern for the wellbeing of the poor. I'm not denying that there are consequences to wealth or income disparity. I just think you don't appear to care about the wellbeing of the poor beyond the minimal lip-service you have to pay it to justify voicing your hatred for the rich.
- squeegee5 9y ago
  Your class warfare demagoguery is entertaining. The entirety of notable human civilization is defined by exploitation, and nobody who matters will ever care. Except politicians who will use your whining and vote to do whatever they were planning to do anyways. Vast inequality is, and always has been, the mark of a great civilization.