4 ms·

Here's a crazy idea. Instead of spending all that time and effort invalidating the opinion of those who have successfully made it out of those circumstances, w

Here's a crazy idea. Instead of spending all that time and effort invalidating the opinion of those who have successfully made it out of those circumstances, why don't you ask them how they did it and what they think can be done to help those who haven't? The problem with keyboard warriors is that it isn't actually action. It's akin to the studies showing that people who talk about what they're going to do get the same emotional satisfaction from actually doing it. What you've managed to do is dismiss the very people who have the most insight and made yourself feel better to boot. What's not to like, right?

bryanrasmussen 7y ago
Well the ones dismissed where those who said I Did X anyone should be able, which is not exactly a very deep insight into the difficulties of doing X when hobbled.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  this illustrates exactly the problem. While people are having these "insights", the problems are not actually getting fixed. This is because fixing the problem isn't really the goal. And these people should absolutely be judged for this.
coldtea 7y ago
>Instead of spending all that time and effort invalidating the opinion of those who have successfully made it out of those circumstances, why don't you ask them how they did it and what they think can be done to help those who haven't? Don't worry about that, for the types I talk about, we get to hear "how they did it" at every chance they get to brag about it. People also hear "what they think can be done to help those who haven't", and more often than not, its condescending garbage, like "you just need to try harder", "motivation is key", "those people are lazy", and so on. They are the worst judges of the factors of their success. For one, as the saying goes, "no winner believes in chance". It's all about their character and grit, nothing circumstantial -- so even if we take their words as gospel, there's nothing there applicable to others, except "change your character". In fact compared to that, the born-rich are perhaps more considerate than the outliers that made it. >The problem with keyboard warriors is that it isn't actually action. It's akin to the studies showing that people who talk about what they're going to do get the same emotional satisfaction from actually doing it. Which is neither here, nor there. This is a discussion, we are all "keyboard warriors" here. >What you've managed to do is dismiss the very people who have the most insight and made yourself feel better to boot. What's not to like, right? Or, you know, I've managed to shed some light into things that are still a large problem in modern society, and that people tend to view wrongly. Also, when you assume (e.g. that I'm poor myself and needed to say those things to "feel better") you make an ass out of, etc...
- celticmusic 7y ago
  There's always reasons why the dismissal of those with the most insight is the "right" thing to do. It turns out human beings can rationalize a lot of things that ought not be rationalized.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Notice how you take for granted (that they have the "most insight") what you should prove...
    - celticmusic 7y ago
      oh, I forgot. You can only use your "lived experience" if you're arguing FOR a specific agenda. Sorry, I sometimes forget the rules since they're unspoken.
- qaq 7y ago
  You like to focus on extremes. The important question is how a person from poor background can move into middle class. Who becomes a billionaire is pretty irrelevant even if you are from well to do family your chances of making it to ,,, are still extremely low.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >The important question is how a person from poor background can move into middle class. The important question for a society is how many persons of poor backgrounds move into middle class (and how many middle class persons fall into poverty). And the answer should be systemic, not just about "laziness" and "lack of motivation" and so on, because that wont explain how some societies manage to have way less pour/homeless/etc and more middle class, and others fail at it. Or how the same society changes its ratios over time...
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      The cultural mores of poor communities are also "systemic", your argument seems to entirely discount the role they play in individual opportunity.
lanewinfield 7y ago
Required watching: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l_F9jxsfGCw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l_F9jxsfGCw
Dirlewanger 7y ago
More often than not, it's by complete chance. There's tons of people that grow up in shitty circumstances that "have potential", and not all of them are going to live up to it. The most likely avenue is that a mentor of some kind entered the person's life (teacher, Boys & Girl's Club, etc.) that supported/push them to aim higher. Then X years later, they will feel oddly smug and say "well, if I can do it, then anyone can!" conveniently leaving out the pure luck they just happened to have.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  Let me draw an analogy to make this more clear. You have a river that separates two climates. One is a barren desert, and the other is a lush forest. You have two villages on each side of this river, and they can see each other off in the distance. But the river is deep, wide, and treacherous. So the lush village talks a lot about how lucky they are, how unlucky the other village is, and how they should recognize their luck in being born on the lush side of the river. And that's what they do. How does this help the barren village? It doesn't, and that's the point. The lush villagers feel as if they're morally good people because, after all, they recognize their luck! But NONE of them take the ultimate responsibility and try build a bridge. They're content being morally good people who are lucky. And then imagine one day a barren villager arrives in the lush village. And this villager starts talking about how they crossed the river, and others could too if they were willing to do what this particular villager did. And the lush villagers start telling this person they're morally bad for believing others can do what they did. What about the disabled and the infirm? But really, the lush villagers just don't want to believe they could have taken the ultimate responsibility to build a bridge because it would lay bare the truth, that they're just as immoral as everyone else. That they COULD have solved the problem, or at the very least lessened the problem. But their goal was never to solve or make it better. Their goal was simply to live with themselves as the beneficiaries of that luck. The only real difference between this analogy and what we're talking about here is that the solution isn't as clear cut. What you basically said was "human beings who are taught the right things will be successful because they'll make better decisions in life". Which strongly implies it's not about chance because we as a society could take it upon ourselves to ensure as a society all of our young are taught the right things. But rather than do that, people teach their children the right things, and then let themselves off the hook for all the other children by "recognizing" how unlucky they are. When they know, they KNOW, when no one is judging and they're being honest with themselves, they know they're just as large a part of the problem due to their own selfishness. --- This problem will start getting better when these smug ass keyboard warriors stop recognizing shit and start taking action. When they stop being able to live with their own inaction and are instead pushed to action.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

Well the ones dismissed where those who said I Did X anyone should be able, which is not exactly a very deep insight into the difficulties of doing X when hobbled.

celticmusic 7y ago
this illustrates exactly the problem. While people are having these "insights", the problems are not actually getting fixed. This is because fixing the problem isn't really the goal. And these people should absolutely be judged for this.

coldtea 7y ago

>Instead of spending all that time and effort invalidating the opinion of those who have successfully made it out of those circumstances, why don't you ask them how they did it and what they think can be done to help those who haven't? Don't worry about that, for the types I talk about, we get to hear "how they did it" at every chance they get to brag about it. People also hear "what they think can be done to help those who haven't", and more often than not, its condescending garbage, like "you just need to try harder", "motivation is key", "those people are lazy", and so on. They are the worst judges of the factors of their success. For one, as the saying goes, "no winner believes in chance". It's all about their character and grit, nothing circumstantial -- so even if we take their words as gospel, there's nothing there applicable to others, except "change your character". In fact compared to that, the born-rich are perhaps more considerate than the outliers that made it. >The problem with keyboard warriors is that it isn't actually action. It's akin to the studies showing that people who talk about what they're going to do get the same emotional satisfaction from actually doing it. Which is neither here, nor there. This is a discussion, we are all "keyboard warriors" here. >What you've managed to do is dismiss the very people who have the most insight and made yourself feel better to boot. What's not to like, right? Or, you know, I've managed to shed some light into things that are still a large problem in modern society, and that people tend to view wrongly. Also, when you assume (e.g. that I'm poor myself and needed to say those things to "feel better") you make an ass out of, etc...

celticmusic 7y ago
There's always reasons why the dismissal of those with the most insight is the "right" thing to do. It turns out human beings can rationalize a lot of things that ought not be rationalized.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Notice how you take for granted (that they have the "most insight") what you should prove...
  - celticmusic 7y ago
    oh, I forgot. You can only use your "lived experience" if you're arguing FOR a specific agenda. Sorry, I sometimes forget the rules since they're unspoken.
qaq 7y ago
You like to focus on extremes. The important question is how a person from poor background can move into middle class. Who becomes a billionaire is pretty irrelevant even if you are from well to do family your chances of making it to ,,, are still extremely low.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >The important question is how a person from poor background can move into middle class. The important question for a society is how many persons of poor backgrounds move into middle class (and how many middle class persons fall into poverty). And the answer should be systemic, not just about "laziness" and "lack of motivation" and so on, because that wont explain how some societies manage to have way less pour/homeless/etc and more middle class, and others fail at it. Or how the same society changes its ratios over time...
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    The cultural mores of poor communities are also "systemic", your argument seems to entirely discount the role they play in individual opportunity.

lanewinfield 7y ago

Required watching: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l_F9jxsfGCw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l_F9jxsfGCw

Dirlewanger 7y ago

More often than not, it's by complete chance. There's tons of people that grow up in shitty circumstances that "have potential", and not all of them are going to live up to it. The most likely avenue is that a mentor of some kind entered the person's life (teacher, Boys & Girl's Club, etc.) that supported/push them to aim higher. Then X years later, they will feel oddly smug and say "well, if I can do it, then anyone can!" conveniently leaving out the pure luck they just happened to have.

celticmusic 7y ago
Let me draw an analogy to make this more clear. You have a river that separates two climates. One is a barren desert, and the other is a lush forest. You have two villages on each side of this river, and they can see each other off in the distance. But the river is deep, wide, and treacherous. So the lush village talks a lot about how lucky they are, how unlucky the other village is, and how they should recognize their luck in being born on the lush side of the river. And that's what they do. How does this help the barren village? It doesn't, and that's the point. The lush villagers feel as if they're morally good people because, after all, they recognize their luck! But NONE of them take the ultimate responsibility and try build a bridge. They're content being morally good people who are lucky. And then imagine one day a barren villager arrives in the lush village. And this villager starts talking about how they crossed the river, and others could too if they were willing to do what this particular villager did. And the lush villagers start telling this person they're morally bad for believing others can do what they did. What about the disabled and the infirm? But really, the lush villagers just don't want to believe they could have taken the ultimate responsibility to build a bridge because it would lay bare the truth, that they're just as immoral as everyone else. That they COULD have solved the problem, or at the very least lessened the problem. But their goal was never to solve or make it better. Their goal was simply to live with themselves as the beneficiaries of that luck. The only real difference between this analogy and what we're talking about here is that the solution isn't as clear cut. What you basically said was "human beings who are taught the right things will be successful because they'll make better decisions in life". Which strongly implies it's not about chance because we as a society could take it upon ourselves to ensure as a society all of our young are taught the right things. But rather than do that, people teach their children the right things, and then let themselves off the hook for all the other children by "recognizing" how unlucky they are. When they know, they KNOW, when no one is judging and they're being honest with themselves, they know they're just as large a part of the problem due to their own selfishness. --- This problem will start getting better when these smug ass keyboard warriors stop recognizing shit and start taking action. When they stop being able to live with their own inaction and are instead pushed to action.