6 ms·

> no matter what social position you may have happened to find yourself in People don't "find themselves" in a social position. It isn't like they wandered int

> no matter what social position you may have happened to find yourself in People don't "find themselves" in a social position. It isn't like they wandered into the wrong part of town. People suffering poverty are angry about wealth because it represents something withheld from them by an opaque and unfair system (how opaque and how unfair is the only thing under debate). Rich people who think poverty is a moral failing are afraid of losing what they have and in need of a feeling of intrinsic superiority because their greatest anxiety is that they don't deserve what they have.

presscast 8y ago
I'm not sure how this contradicts, or even has anything to do with the parent post. It seems like you're reading excessively far into a turn-of-phrase.
- scandox 8y ago
  That turn of phrase is the key indicator in the original comment. It means they think of poverty and wealth as unrelated phenomena. Generally it is our most casual statements that say the most about our underlying assumptions.
  - harimau777 8y ago
    I don't think it's fair to assume the worst interpretation of what someone says.
- geofft 8y ago
  It is relevant to the parent post because there's legitimate reason for the poor to have animus against the rich, and not vice versa. The parent post is attempting to treat "poor" and "rich" as something like rival sports teams that are on equal footing, because that's required to criticize the poor mad at the rich in the same way you'd criticize the rich mad at the poor.
  - presscast 8y ago
    >It is relevant to the parent post because there's legitimate reason for the poor to have animus against the rich, and not vice versa The parent poster is specifically referring to a specific type of unfounded animus. Namely: having no argument other than "they have more money than me" to justify said animus.
    - geofft 8y ago
      The parent poster wrote "poor people who have nothing more to hate on rich people about than that they have money", which sounds like well-founded animus to me. Here's a way to think about it - what is the corresponding thing for the rich to hate on the poor for? Are the rich jealous of not having money? Are they envious of those who cannot pay more for housing simply because a building of questionable merit faces it (one of the examples given in the article)? How is that founded? The rich can easily get themselves into that position, should they be desirous of it. There is an arguable parallel in the rich who see the poor as being a moral failure for merely not having money and the poor who see the rich as being a moral failure for merely having money, but a) I think the poor have a better claim to well-foundedness there, even if it is slight, in that the rich quite clearly have the ability to stop having money with a snap of their fingers where the poor do not obviously have the ability to start having money, and b) the article does not seem to say that merely having money is a moral failure - at best it says that misusing money is a moral failure.
      - presscast 8y ago
        >The parent poster wrote "poor people who have nothing more to hate on rich people about than that they have money", which sounds like well-founded animus to me. Let me make sure I understand, because I fear we may be talking past each other. Are you suggesting that the simple fact that one has more money than you is sufficient to justify animus? (I'm happy to discuss the rest of your post once we clear up this particular point; it seems fundamental.)
        tobr 8y ago
cortesoft 8y ago
“Find themselves” is intentionally passive, without implying any cause... the alternatives would be “got themselves into” or “were placed by someone else” The phrase was used to stay out of the debate about the cause, not to imply there was no cause.
- icebraining 8y ago
  But you can't separate the cause from the issue. It's like seeing some people admiring a trophy and saying "so what, I could make one myself in a few hours". The trophy is a symbol for something more, and so is having hundreds of millions of dollars.
  - harimau777 8y ago
    I think there is potentially merit in the idea of the idea that the cause and the issue are related; in that the same system makes some people rich and some poor. However, I don't think that's relevant to whether it is okay to hate an individual unless they actively wronged someone.

presscast 8y ago

I'm not sure how this contradicts, or even has anything to do with the parent post. It seems like you're reading excessively far into a turn-of-phrase.

scandox 8y ago
That turn of phrase is the key indicator in the original comment. It means they think of poverty and wealth as unrelated phenomena. Generally it is our most casual statements that say the most about our underlying assumptions.
- harimau777 8y ago
  I don't think it's fair to assume the worst interpretation of what someone says.
geofft 8y ago
It is relevant to the parent post because there's legitimate reason for the poor to have animus against the rich, and not vice versa. The parent post is attempting to treat "poor" and "rich" as something like rival sports teams that are on equal footing, because that's required to criticize the poor mad at the rich in the same way you'd criticize the rich mad at the poor.
- presscast 8y ago
  >It is relevant to the parent post because there's legitimate reason for the poor to have animus against the rich, and not vice versa The parent poster is specifically referring to a specific type of unfounded animus. Namely: having no argument other than "they have more money than me" to justify said animus.
  - geofft 8y ago
    The parent poster wrote "poor people who have nothing more to hate on rich people about than that they have money", which sounds like well-founded animus to me. Here's a way to think about it - what is the corresponding thing for the rich to hate on the poor for? Are the rich jealous of not having money? Are they envious of those who cannot pay more for housing simply because a building of questionable merit faces it (one of the examples given in the article)? How is that founded? The rich can easily get themselves into that position, should they be desirous of it. There is an arguable parallel in the rich who see the poor as being a moral failure for merely not having money and the poor who see the rich as being a moral failure for merely having money, but a) I think the poor have a better claim to well-foundedness there, even if it is slight, in that the rich quite clearly have the ability to stop having money with a snap of their fingers where the poor do not obviously have the ability to start having money, and b) the article does not seem to say that merely having money is a moral failure - at best it says that misusing money is a moral failure.
    - presscast 8y ago
      >The parent poster wrote "poor people who have nothing more to hate on rich people about than that they have money", which sounds like well-founded animus to me. Let me make sure I understand, because I fear we may be talking past each other. Are you suggesting that the simple fact that one has more money than you is sufficient to justify animus? (I'm happy to discuss the rest of your post once we clear up this particular point; it seems fundamental.)
      - tobr 8y ago

cortesoft 8y ago

“Find themselves” is intentionally passive, without implying any cause... the alternatives would be “got themselves into” or “were placed by someone else” The phrase was used to stay out of the debate about the cause, not to imply there was no cause.

icebraining 8y ago
But you can't separate the cause from the issue. It's like seeing some people admiring a trophy and saying "so what, I could make one myself in a few hours". The trophy is a symbol for something more, and so is having hundreds of millions of dollars.
- harimau777 8y ago
  I think there is potentially merit in the idea of the idea that the cause and the issue are related; in that the same system makes some people rich and some poor. However, I don't think that's relevant to whether it is okay to hate an individual unless they actively wronged someone.