4 ms·
> The article defines elite panic as a false panic; a "cognitive disorder", caused by elites who look down on the rest of us and think we're all violent hooliga
by rumanator 7y ago
> The article defines elite panic as a false panic; a "cognitive disorder", caused by elites who look down on the rest of us and think we're all violent hooligans.
Yes. It's a belief based on pseudo-morality, where those who are not privileged are portrayed as being rude uncultured barbarians who, without resorting to extreme violence and oppression, would represent a threat to their pure and pristine existence and social order.
It's the same argument that slave owners used to justify beating slaves to death.
>If people really are trying to kill them, I don't think "panic" is an accurate term and I can't blame them for taking steps to avoid being murdered.
You somehow left out the part where these elites resort to extreme violence and oppression to deprive their neighbors from fulfilling basic needs and instead of helping the community they outright represent a very real and very violent threat to them.
And then, as a feat of cognitive dissonance, these elites cowarding behind their castle walls try to fabricate a moral basis for the violence and oppression they inflict on the very society that permitted their life of privilege.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoHistory strongly suggests that, in periods of disorder, even elites who did not resort to extreme violence and oppression will get murdered. ISIS didn't grant any leniency to nice elites who were well-loved by their local community.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Retric 7y agoThat’s simply false. The aftermath of the American civil war for example worked out fine for large swaths of southern elites compared to the general population. Social disorder generally is bad for everyone, but the elites often recover faster with fewer problems. Looking at say the fall of the USSR it was well connected elites that ended up making vast fortunes.