3 ms·

Okay, that makes a bit more sense. People will discuss philosophy forever. That doesn't stop society, rightly or wrongly, from forming consensus that some posi

Okay, that makes a bit more sense. People will discuss philosophy forever. That doesn't stop society, rightly or wrongly, from forming consensus that some positions are dumb. So with my original comment, I am curious (a) if I understand the article correctly, and (b) why some HN readers support a position that, in my neck of the woods, people consider dumb.

coldtea 8y ago
>People will discuss philosophy forever. That doesn't stop society, rightly or wrongly, from forming consensus that some positions are dumb. No, but it also doesn't stop society from forming dumb consensuses either. It's not like what's dumb is determined by popularity contest (even if one assumed that most of "society" is on the same page on such issues). >(b) why some HN readers support a position that, in my neck of the woods, people consider dumb. Because what people consider dumb and what is dumb is not the same thing. Some people believe that science and tech aside (where progress is cumulative), it's not at all clear that modern norms, culture, practices, art, laws, etc are better than older norms and practices. And it's a totally reasonable stance to have (and a lot of the counter-arguments are not really very deep, e.g. "You prefer the 50s society? But back then they had more racism". Well, it's not like we have to "take-or-leave" everything from today or from a past era. Plus, today we have more of other negatives that they didn't have at some other time -- e.g. the quality of modern politics, for one, the obesity and opioid epidemic, zero corporate loyalty, increased privacy erosion, pricier college education, and other such things...).
- charlesism 8y ago
  It's not like what's dumb is determined by popularity contest Agreed. There's an amusing quote that goes: One thing is sure: all common knowledge, all traditional opinions, are foolish, for the very reason that the majority agrees with them. But we're still sort of talking at cross purposes here. My personal view is that it's dumb to use 'inherited wealth' as a gauge of a person's character or competence. For the past century, that view has also been the majority view in the West. If the views didn't agree, I would have had to position my original post differently. I probably would have gone with something like "I realize most of you believe inherited wealth is a sign of good genes, but I disagree because.." But then, I wouldn't likely be as interested, since - in such an alternate universe - I would already be aware of the popular reasoning. Eh. At this point, maybe we're off in the weeds
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >My personal view is that it's dumb to use 'inherited wealth' as a gauge of a person's character or competence For others, for example, inherited wealth means inherited culture (from their cultivated parents etc). It's not as much "inherited wealth" but inherited class (as in the sentence "this man has class"). Plus, even if it's not the perfect gauge of "character of competence", respecting such a wealth order can be argued that results in a stabler society than one where people always compete for a place at the top. Not saying that I agree with those arguments (and they are not the sole ones fans of that arrangement make). >For the past century, that view has also been the majority view in the West. Depends, because there's a very real classism in both the US and (even more so) the UK for example. Both in that rich families take care of their own, consider themselves a separate league above the rest, and see outsiders as intruders, and in the very real sense that for all "startup rags to riches" success stories, those in top don't change that much: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-10/rich-kids-inheritances-will-last-many-generations https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-10/rich-k... https://newrepublic.com/article/116462/family-wealth-lasts-ten-fifteen-generations https://newrepublic.com/article/116462/family-wealth-lasts-t... https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/ https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14... And people still consider nouveaux-rich ("new money") as gaudy and uncultivated.
    - charlesism 8y ago
      people still consider nouveaux-rich as gaudy and uncultivated. The extent to which this is still true is complicated. We could go back and forth trading examples of where it is, and is not. My feeling is that the jazz age was the beginning (not strictly the beginning, but a speeding up) of the end of that attitude. It's hard to call one person gauche when it's stylish for another to own a print of a Campbells soup can. Modern-day haute couture might include a tattered tee shirt emblazened with the word "Urine". There's probably a Youtube video somewhere of Prince William wearing Crocs and "dabbing". There is little agreement over what "is done" these days. there's a very real classism in both the US and (even more so) the UK for example Sure. Actually, if you include racism, the US might best the UK. However, while classism exists, it is also taboo. People regard and treat others differently because of class, but they seldom admit it (even to themselves!). So the case still is, in both countries, that the majority profess to hold egalitarian views.

coldtea 8y ago

>People will discuss philosophy forever. That doesn't stop society, rightly or wrongly, from forming consensus that some positions are dumb. No, but it also doesn't stop society from forming dumb consensuses either. It's not like what's dumb is determined by popularity contest (even if one assumed that most of "society" is on the same page on such issues). >(b) why some HN readers support a position that, in my neck of the woods, people consider dumb. Because what people consider dumb and what is dumb is not the same thing. Some people believe that science and tech aside (where progress is cumulative), it's not at all clear that modern norms, culture, practices, art, laws, etc are better than older norms and practices. And it's a totally reasonable stance to have (and a lot of the counter-arguments are not really very deep, e.g. "You prefer the 50s society? But back then they had more racism". Well, it's not like we have to "take-or-leave" everything from today or from a past era. Plus, today we have more of other negatives that they didn't have at some other time -- e.g. the quality of modern politics, for one, the obesity and opioid epidemic, zero corporate loyalty, increased privacy erosion, pricier college education, and other such things...).

charlesism 8y ago
It's not like what's dumb is determined by popularity contest Agreed. There's an amusing quote that goes: One thing is sure: all common knowledge, all traditional opinions, are foolish, for the very reason that the majority agrees with them. But we're still sort of talking at cross purposes here. My personal view is that it's dumb to use 'inherited wealth' as a gauge of a person's character or competence. For the past century, that view has also been the majority view in the West. If the views didn't agree, I would have had to position my original post differently. I probably would have gone with something like "I realize most of you believe inherited wealth is a sign of good genes, but I disagree because.." But then, I wouldn't likely be as interested, since - in such an alternate universe - I would already be aware of the popular reasoning. Eh. At this point, maybe we're off in the weeds
- coldtea 8y ago
  >My personal view is that it's dumb to use 'inherited wealth' as a gauge of a person's character or competence For others, for example, inherited wealth means inherited culture (from their cultivated parents etc). It's not as much "inherited wealth" but inherited class (as in the sentence "this man has class"). Plus, even if it's not the perfect gauge of "character of competence", respecting such a wealth order can be argued that results in a stabler society than one where people always compete for a place at the top. Not saying that I agree with those arguments (and they are not the sole ones fans of that arrangement make). >For the past century, that view has also been the majority view in the West. Depends, because there's a very real classism in both the US and (even more so) the UK for example. Both in that rich families take care of their own, consider themselves a separate league above the rest, and see outsiders as intruders, and in the very real sense that for all "startup rags to riches" success stories, those in top don't change that much: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-10/rich-kids-inheritances-will-last-many-generations https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-10/rich-k... https://newrepublic.com/article/116462/family-wealth-lasts-ten-fifteen-generations https://newrepublic.com/article/116462/family-wealth-lasts-t... https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/ https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14... And people still consider nouveaux-rich ("new money") as gaudy and uncultivated.
  - charlesism 8y ago
    people still consider nouveaux-rich as gaudy and uncultivated. The extent to which this is still true is complicated. We could go back and forth trading examples of where it is, and is not. My feeling is that the jazz age was the beginning (not strictly the beginning, but a speeding up) of the end of that attitude. It's hard to call one person gauche when it's stylish for another to own a print of a Campbells soup can. Modern-day haute couture might include a tattered tee shirt emblazened with the word "Urine". There's probably a Youtube video somewhere of Prince William wearing Crocs and "dabbing". There is little agreement over what "is done" these days. there's a very real classism in both the US and (even more so) the UK for example Sure. Actually, if you include racism, the US might best the UK. However, while classism exists, it is also taboo. People regard and treat others differently because of class, but they seldom admit it (even to themselves!). So the case still is, in both countries, that the majority profess to hold egalitarian views.