4 ms·
Good thing this article has been posted. We’ve been short of billionaires willing to share their opinions about why we should consider the incredible increase
by CPLX 7y ago
Good thing this article has been posted.
We’ve been short of billionaires willing to share their opinions about why we should consider the incredible increase in concentrated wealth and the resurgence of monopoly business practices as “moderate” while the idea that maybe we should, you know, consider doing something to stop that, as “extreme” and “far left”.
There’s a couple tells in the article. But here’s a pretty clear one:
> Nearly all the most impressive people I know are accidental moderates
You can just map “impressive” to “rich” and “accidental moderate” to “uninterested in increased taxation or regulation in their own life despite their otherwise disparate political views” and the whole thing comes into focus pretty clearly.
- zozbot234 7y agoThere are plenty of impressive folks who aren't especially rich. And plenty of rich folks who support increased taxation or regulation, especially as a means of keeping competitors at bay and securing their own monopoly business practices.
- gms 7y agoCurious: why not take the words at face value rather than redefining them in a way that annoys you?
- tomlockwood 7y agoIsn't it possible that by posing a question that supposes the post you're questioning redefines something, you've created a case of the negative type of redefinition you're implying is happening?
- randallsquared 7y agoIn case you didn't read the top comment, the redefining was in the text and quite literal, not something that had to be supposed or inferred: > You can just map “impressive” to “rich” and “accidental moderate” to “uninterested in increased taxation or regulation in their own life despite their otherwise disparate political views” and the whole thing comes into focus pretty clearly.
- tomlockwood 7y agoIf there's no difference between interpreting or critically analysing what someone says, and redefinition, I can see where you're coming from.
- randallsquared 7y agoI do see a difference, and the piece I quoted seems to me to be the latter: redefinition. I say that, in part, because substituting those meanings changes the perceived message of the piece. If the rest of the essay reasonably supported that reading, I might well agree that this was interpretation, analysis, or even clarification. However, it seems as though the original comment is working backward from pg's identity to decide what opinions it's possible for him to have, in the commenter's view, and then covering the message of the essay (whatever you think of it) with one of the commenter's pg-possible opinions. Personally, I'd prefer that commenters of this view argue against the essay directly, since I think there are a lot of things to say in that regard.
- tomlockwood 7y agoIf you believe reading meaning into a text is redefinition - saying a text is trying to redefine things when the text doesn't use that precise word, is also redefinition.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago"Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. You don't "read meaning into" anything as a part of a honest analysis.
- tomlockwood 7y ago> "Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. What changes about the definition of "impressive" if I think someone uses that word to refer exclusively to rich people?
- revscat 7y agoBanal masturbatory liberalism: a greater enemy than authoritarianism. “Look upon my works, you lesser men. I sit atop my perch, passing judgment on all those who pursue their beliefs with any passion. Righteousness I confidently disdain, ridicule all who act upon their beliefs, no matter how scientific or otherwise demonstrable they may be in their truthfulness. I am uninterested in Truth, and Justice in all her forms can be raped out back for all I care. “No, the most important thing — more than reproducibility, an understanding of history, or political science — is to refrain from excitement, and to believe myself and those like me to be superior to those who succumb to passions. The child in Asia working 14 hour days to make shirts? They are not able to see clearly. The mother who had her children ripped from her arms at the Texas border? Moderation is the best remedy. The firefighters in Australia fighting apocalyptic infernos, uncompensated and unrespected by their Prime Minister? Why, they are just too close to the situation.” This is the most infuriating thing I have ever read. PG suffers from never having had a gun held to his head, either literally or figuratively, and believes that this makes him more worthy of being listened to, rather than less. The privileged always think so. So, PG: go fuck yourself. Tell us the benefits of moderation when hospitals charge us into bankruptcy for procedures others in the world receive for tens of thousands of dollars less. Tell me how moderation helps the young black man who was murdered by a cop for no reason whatsoever. Tell me how moderation helps the pregnant mother of three who is prevented from seeking an abortion. Tell me how moderation will save humanity from the extinction level event that is climate change. Fuck you, you capitalist piece of shit. You sit atop your economic pile, and think that gives you special insights into the sufferings and tribulations of humanity. But we see. All you are doing is propagating the system that has allowed you to maintain that perch, and calling anyone who challenges it an extremist. It is what the capitalist class has always done, and what they will always do.