3 ms·

> They are both self-made success stories. Schwarzenegger even moreso than Gates. That second part is precisely my point. They're both self-made success storie

> They are both self-made success stories. Schwarzenegger even moreso than Gates. That second part is precisely my point. They're both self-made success stories, but they are in no way equal. They're both self-made success stories in the sense that a dolphin and a cat are both mammals. > If you come from nothing, i'd say getting into any of those professions more than qualifies for "making it". I would like you to closely examine what you said and the way you said it. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just didn't pay a lot of attention to what I wrote, rather than ignoring it and cherry-picking parts to focus on. The inequality in United States is very, very pronounced and it's getting worse with time. The "self-made success" trope, which involves treating different self-made success stories as equal, is a way of defending and perpetuating that inequality. People who are getting more and more oppressed by that inequality are rallying against the use of that trope. Yes, I agree with your definition: an individual that exceeds the median success level of their peer class group can be, under certain circumstances, be defined as a "self-made success". My point is that it's just a definition. What people are arguing about -- in general, not just this article -- is not really the definition. Rather, they are arguing about the concept in its socioeconomic context. Which brings me back to what you said about "making it": if you come from nothing, then just having a well-compensated profession is qualifies as "making it". Is that self-made success? Because that's the topic of our discussion here, remember? Sure, you could just repeat your definition and say that both "well-compensated professional who came from nothing" and "Bill Gates becoming a billionaire" are examples that fit the definition and that you're just stating facts and that there are no value judgments involved. In which case, you're just nit-picking the article and not making a useful point at all. Or maybe you just took issue with the literal words I used to describe the American Dream and are nit-picking those, outside the context of the rest of the sentence, or indeed the rest of my comment? The truth is that the discussions about the "self-made success as a trope" are not really about the clear cut definitions. It's turtles all the way down, in the sense that almost everyone relies on other people in some ways, so arguing about the precise definition of "self-made success" is a bit pointless. The discourse is really about the role of the trope in the growing inequality in this society and, to that purpose, arguing about some of the most common abuses of the trope -- like this article does -- is much more useful.

darawk 8y ago
> That second part is precisely my point. They're both self-made success stories, but they are in no way equal. They're both self-made success stories in the sense that a dolphin and a cat are both mammals. I would argue they're fairly close to equal, since Gates's success is many orders of magnitude greater than Schwarzeneggers in absolute terms. Gates started higher and ended up higher. The amount each moved seems comparable to me. > The inequality in United States is very, very pronounced and it's getting worse with time. The "self-made success" trope, which involves treating different self-made success stories as equal, is a way of defending and perpetuating that inequality. I agree, it is. But the question i'm interested in is not what it is used to 'defend and perpetuate', but rather, whether or not it is true. > People who are getting more and more oppressed by that inequality are rallying against the use of that trope. Totally, though i'd also add that I think the focus on 'inequality' per se is fairly misguided. I think a much better thing to focus on would be the absolute wellbeing of the bottom. But I don't get to set the cultural agenda. > Which brings me back to what you said about "making it": if you come from nothing, then just having a well-compensated profession is qualifies as "making it". Is that self-made success? Because that's the topic of our discussion here, remember? Ya, I would absolutely call that success. If someone immigrates here from Africa with nothing and becomes a lawyer or other professional, that's success. That is making it. Their kids will then have the opportunity to make it on a global scale, just like Gates, et al. > The truth is that the discussions about the "self-made success as a trope" are not really about the clear cut definitions. It's turtles all the way down, in the sense that almost everyone relies on other people in some ways, so arguing about the precise definition of "self-made success" is a bit pointless. The discourse is really about the role of the trope in the growing inequality in this society and, to that purpose, arguing about some of the most common abuses of the trope -- like this article does -- is much more useful. My point is simply this: The notion of 'self made success' is not, in any meaningful sense, a myth. It is a real thing that real people do. Is the story used to justify the status quo? Yes. But lots of stories are used to justify lots of things. The question we should be asking is: is the story true? And if it's true, is it harmful? I don't think it is, but many people seem to.

darawk 8y ago

> That second part is precisely my point. They're both self-made success stories, but they are in no way equal. They're both self-made success stories in the sense that a dolphin and a cat are both mammals. I would argue they're fairly close to equal, since Gates's success is many orders of magnitude greater than Schwarzeneggers in absolute terms. Gates started higher and ended up higher. The amount each moved seems comparable to me. > The inequality in United States is very, very pronounced and it's getting worse with time. The "self-made success" trope, which involves treating different self-made success stories as equal, is a way of defending and perpetuating that inequality. I agree, it is. But the question i'm interested in is not what it is used to 'defend and perpetuate', but rather, whether or not it is true. > People who are getting more and more oppressed by that inequality are rallying against the use of that trope. Totally, though i'd also add that I think the focus on 'inequality' per se is fairly misguided. I think a much better thing to focus on would be the absolute wellbeing of the bottom. But I don't get to set the cultural agenda. > Which brings me back to what you said about "making it": if you come from nothing, then just having a well-compensated profession is qualifies as "making it". Is that self-made success? Because that's the topic of our discussion here, remember? Ya, I would absolutely call that success. If someone immigrates here from Africa with nothing and becomes a lawyer or other professional, that's success. That is making it. Their kids will then have the opportunity to make it on a global scale, just like Gates, et al. > The truth is that the discussions about the "self-made success as a trope" are not really about the clear cut definitions. It's turtles all the way down, in the sense that almost everyone relies on other people in some ways, so arguing about the precise definition of "self-made success" is a bit pointless. The discourse is really about the role of the trope in the growing inequality in this society and, to that purpose, arguing about some of the most common abuses of the trope -- like this article does -- is much more useful. My point is simply this: The notion of 'self made success' is not, in any meaningful sense, a myth. It is a real thing that real people do. Is the story used to justify the status quo? Yes. But lots of stories are used to justify lots of things. The question we should be asking is: is the story true? And if it's true, is it harmful? I don't think it is, but many people seem to.