4 ms·

I agree with you, and I too kept thinking "Hmm, that is a really good point." but I found the statement you called out somewhat at odds with the rest of the the

I agree with you, and I too kept thinking "Hmm, that is a really good point." but I found the statement you called out somewhat at odds with the rest of the thesis. What I understood him to say was that his thesis is that culture wars are not about identity and yet this endless conflict is about a lack of identity. So where does identity really fit in there? The economic and political incentives of inciting "beefing" were spot on. And there is nothing like amping up the inequality of the distribution of wealth to put energy into the "beef battery" (if such a thing existed).

discreteevent 7y ago
"And there is nothing like amping up the inequality of the distribution of wealth" You're adding a little bit of beef flavor to your comment with that one. Inequality of wealth is something that is increasing. That's a fact. The causes and effects of it have pros and cons that should be debated. People "amping it up" is an assertion that tastes somewhat of beef - but it can be made about both sides.
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  I can see that interpretation, it wasn't my intent. One of the questions that comes from reading the piece is "what drives people to complain?" The article describes the empowering of "mooks" and in my experience complaining is common but it generally dies down if there is a general feeling among the complainers that everyone is in essentially the same situation. Whereas the complaining does not die down, and gets more intense, when there is perceived inequity between one group and another. My observation has been that if the 'haves' group is about the same size as the 'havenot' group then the complaints are constant but relatively stable in intensity, as that ratio shifts with a smaller and smaller 'have' group, it seems the intensity is increased. The article discusses this effect a bit in that the size of one's army defines the amount of energy that can be thrown into the fight. I would not be surprised if there was a correlation between group sizes of groups that identify as "havenots" and the intensity of their beefing. That suggests to me a hypothesis that wealth inequality ratios would correlate strongly with the energy of the conflict. There are some famous conflicts, the French Revolution comes to mind, which, as I understand it, were driven by this sort of energy. If that hypothesis turned out to be true, then it would suggest one course of action to reduce the 'beefyness' of the conversations.

discreteevent 7y ago

"And there is nothing like amping up the inequality of the distribution of wealth" You're adding a little bit of beef flavor to your comment with that one. Inequality of wealth is something that is increasing. That's a fact. The causes and effects of it have pros and cons that should be debated. People "amping it up" is an assertion that tastes somewhat of beef - but it can be made about both sides.

ChuckMcM 7y ago
I can see that interpretation, it wasn't my intent. One of the questions that comes from reading the piece is "what drives people to complain?" The article describes the empowering of "mooks" and in my experience complaining is common but it generally dies down if there is a general feeling among the complainers that everyone is in essentially the same situation. Whereas the complaining does not die down, and gets more intense, when there is perceived inequity between one group and another. My observation has been that if the 'haves' group is about the same size as the 'havenot' group then the complaints are constant but relatively stable in intensity, as that ratio shifts with a smaller and smaller 'have' group, it seems the intensity is increased. The article discusses this effect a bit in that the size of one's army defines the amount of energy that can be thrown into the fight. I would not be surprised if there was a correlation between group sizes of groups that identify as "havenots" and the intensity of their beefing. That suggests to me a hypothesis that wealth inequality ratios would correlate strongly with the energy of the conflict. There are some famous conflicts, the French Revolution comes to mind, which, as I understand it, were driven by this sort of energy. If that hypothesis turned out to be true, then it would suggest one course of action to reduce the 'beefyness' of the conversations.