4 ms·

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
        > Are you suggesting that the simple fact that one has more money than you is sufficient to justify animus? Not if the difference is trivial, but absolutely when it is as enormous and as unmotivated as it often is. Why would it be strange that obviously unfair inequality would be a source of animus?
        Thriptic 8y ago
        Saying "I hate you for having more than me and I want your stuff" is just straight up jealousy, and it should be easy to understand why wealthy people respond with hostility to this, creating a negative feedback loop.
        tobr 8y ago
        Your quote is a straw man, but what does it matter if jealousy is involved or not? You can disregard any animosity stemming from social injustices with that logic. Women are just straight up jealous because men are paid more. Blacks are just straight up jealous because whites have longer life expectancy. LGBTs are just straight up jealous because straight cis people don’t have to conceal a central part of who they are.
        Thriptic 8y ago
        I think my interpretation of the thread was that anger towards people with money just for having money was legitimate. If your thought is that those people are actively retarding the ability of the poor to improve their situation, then I think you have some ground to stand on, but otherwise I don't think it is reasonable. I think it's ok to wish things were different; I think it's ok to be angry at a system; I think it's ok to be angry at people who have personally done you wrong; but I don't think it's ok to be angry at people who haven't personally done you wrong just because they have something you don't. I actually happen to fall into one of those minority groups that you mentioned, and I don't hate the other people that can do things that I can't; I hate the system and the people perpetuating the stupidity. That may predominantly be composed of people in that other group, but it is certainly not anywhere near all of them, and I have the ability to make that distinction and avoid prejudgements. That being said, all of that nuance went unstated in my original post, so my bad.

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
      > Are you suggesting that the simple fact that one has more money than you is sufficient to justify animus? Not if the difference is trivial, but absolutely when it is as enormous and as unmotivated as it often is. Why would it be strange that obviously unfair inequality would be a source of animus?
      - Thriptic 8y ago
        Saying "I hate you for having more than me and I want your stuff" is just straight up jealousy, and it should be easy to understand why wealthy people respond with hostility to this, creating a negative feedback loop.
        tobr 8y ago
        Your quote is a straw man, but what does it matter if jealousy is involved or not? You can disregard any animosity stemming from social injustices with that logic. Women are just straight up jealous because men are paid more. Blacks are just straight up jealous because whites have longer life expectancy. LGBTs are just straight up jealous because straight cis people don’t have to conceal a central part of who they are.
        Thriptic 8y ago
        I think my interpretation of the thread was that anger towards people with money just for having money was legitimate. If your thought is that those people are actively retarding the ability of the poor to improve their situation, then I think you have some ground to stand on, but otherwise I don't think it is reasonable. I think it's ok to wish things were different; I think it's ok to be angry at a system; I think it's ok to be angry at people who have personally done you wrong; but I don't think it's ok to be angry at people who haven't personally done you wrong just because they have something you don't. I actually happen to fall into one of those minority groups that you mentioned, and I don't hate the other people that can do things that I can't; I hate the system and the people perpetuating the stupidity. That may predominantly be composed of people in that other group, but it is certainly not anywhere near all of them, and I have the ability to make that distinction and avoid prejudgements. That being said, all of that nuance went unstated in my original post, so my bad.