4 ms·

>a socioeconomic segment that, due to pervasive discrimination, is notoriously underrepresented in higher ed This argument is getting very tiring, and increasi

>a socioeconomic segment that, due to pervasive discrimination, is notoriously underrepresented in higher ed This argument is getting very tiring, and increasingly dangerous. There's a laundry list of reasons coming from a poor background is disadvantageous. Especially growing up without a father and with poor nutritional intake. If we handwave all inequities away with discrimination, then actual, internal problems will never be solved. That goes for all marginalized minorities.

leereeves 8y ago
Also for white people born into poverty. There's an entire underclass of white people, so often dismissed as "white trash", who struggle with the same broken families, drug- and crime-ridden neighborhoods, failing schools, and (classist) discrimination on top of that, without any help from the leftist elite. But correcting those problems would require eliminating wealth inequality and disrupt the idyllic lives of the elite. Our attention is directed to discrimination precisely in order to prevent the solution of these actual, internal problems. We saw the battle clearly in 2016. Hillary's identity politics vs Sander's raceless socialism, and we all know which side Wall Street, Democratic insiders (AKA superdelegates), and the leftist media were on.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  Why on earth would a lack of social capital in the 'underclasses' require "eliminating wealth inequality" in order to solve? The material living standards of many "poor" people are far from low! If we truly want to be cynical about it, we could actually surmise that what the elite of this country fear most is a ruinous fall in their established status and prestige, not their wealth. No matter what else you might think about '45', the election of a President who built most of his successful campaign on supporting the average folks over the 'out-of-touch' elite also suggests that this is where the actual fault-lines of modern politics are.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    That's an interesting question, but I've yet to see a plan for equalizing social capital and status that didn't include "raise taxes on the rich". Perhaps you know of one?
    - zozbot123 8y ago
      Social capital is not something you 'equalize' by raising taxes on the rich; it's something you build by introducing the norms and institutions of civil society even among people who were formerly socially excluded and marginalized. As one example, unions are a notable case of an institution which has played a non-trivial role in improving social capital/civil society among the "underclasses" of many developing countries.
      - leereeves 8y ago
        Oh, that's what you meant by social capital. I meant things like jobs, health care, education, and most importantly, opportunities to excel. I think any attempt to blame the underclass for their situation is simply ignorant of the problems faced by people who don't have access to those things, and the reasons why people whose best hope appears to lie outside the "norms of civil society" choose not to obey the norms of a system which is set up primarily to preserve wealth - that is, to preserve their exclusion and subjugation.
        zozbot123 8y ago
        Actually, it's pretty much both. And I absolutely agree that any attempt to blame individuals for their plight is absolutely misguided. Not least because it's rather misleading to even talk about people "choosing not to obey" the norms of civil society as a relevant issue - the fact that this is even a plausible choice simply shows that the self-sustaining aggregate of norms, solid institutions, real opportunity to be economically productive and even to excel (and not just pointless make-work) and the like were never properly established in the first place - that these people, in a way, are indeed being excluded and subjugated, if perhaps only via inaction. It's nonetheless a mistake to presume that such subjugation "preserves" wealth. It actively destroys wealth, whether or not it functionally preserves an existing social hierarchy.

leereeves 8y ago

Also for white people born into poverty. There's an entire underclass of white people, so often dismissed as "white trash", who struggle with the same broken families, drug- and crime-ridden neighborhoods, failing schools, and (classist) discrimination on top of that, without any help from the leftist elite. But correcting those problems would require eliminating wealth inequality and disrupt the idyllic lives of the elite. Our attention is directed to discrimination precisely in order to prevent the solution of these actual, internal problems. We saw the battle clearly in 2016. Hillary's identity politics vs Sander's raceless socialism, and we all know which side Wall Street, Democratic insiders (AKA superdelegates), and the leftist media were on.

zozbot123 8y ago
Why on earth would a lack of social capital in the 'underclasses' require "eliminating wealth inequality" in order to solve? The material living standards of many "poor" people are far from low! If we truly want to be cynical about it, we could actually surmise that what the elite of this country fear most is a ruinous fall in their established status and prestige, not their wealth. No matter what else you might think about '45', the election of a President who built most of his successful campaign on supporting the average folks over the 'out-of-touch' elite also suggests that this is where the actual fault-lines of modern politics are.
- leereeves 8y ago
  That's an interesting question, but I've yet to see a plan for equalizing social capital and status that didn't include "raise taxes on the rich". Perhaps you know of one?
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    Social capital is not something you 'equalize' by raising taxes on the rich; it's something you build by introducing the norms and institutions of civil society even among people who were formerly socially excluded and marginalized. As one example, unions are a notable case of an institution which has played a non-trivial role in improving social capital/civil society among the "underclasses" of many developing countries.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      Oh, that's what you meant by social capital. I meant things like jobs, health care, education, and most importantly, opportunities to excel. I think any attempt to blame the underclass for their situation is simply ignorant of the problems faced by people who don't have access to those things, and the reasons why people whose best hope appears to lie outside the "norms of civil society" choose not to obey the norms of a system which is set up primarily to preserve wealth - that is, to preserve their exclusion and subjugation.
      - zozbot123 8y ago
        Actually, it's pretty much both. And I absolutely agree that any attempt to blame individuals for their plight is absolutely misguided. Not least because it's rather misleading to even talk about people "choosing not to obey" the norms of civil society as a relevant issue - the fact that this is even a plausible choice simply shows that the self-sustaining aggregate of norms, solid institutions, real opportunity to be economically productive and even to excel (and not just pointless make-work) and the like were never properly established in the first place - that these people, in a way, are indeed being excluded and subjugated, if perhaps only via inaction. It's nonetheless a mistake to presume that such subjugation "preserves" wealth. It actively destroys wealth, whether or not it functionally preserves an existing social hierarchy.