4 ms·

People develop those bad attitudes, viewpoints, or whatever, in large part because they are poor. The contagion aspect, if it exists, is secondary. You are simp

People develop those bad attitudes, viewpoints, or whatever, in large part because they are poor. The contagion aspect, if it exists, is secondary. You are simply advocating the preservation of the elite by gating access to it. Of course if everyone had access to the same networks there would be no elite anymore. If it raises the prospects of the vast majority of Americans by, say, 5%, that would actually be great for the country, and maybe not having an elite wouldn't be so bad (to the extent this is even possible, of course there will always be some that are far ahead of the curve). But it would be bad-mouthed as socialism.

afterburner 15y ago
Hey, if I'm being downvoted for my last sentence, then keep in mind that is the statement in my post actually most likely to be true.
forkandwait 15y ago
"People develop those bad attitudes, viewpoints, or whatever, in large part because they are poor. The contagion aspect, if it exists, is secondary." I think this is the official leftist dogma, but I actually fail to see any obvious causality. I think it assumes that structural lack of opportunity (ie you qualified to be a surgeon, but the y only job you can get is shoeshine boy because you are black) leads to resentment leads to bad behavior. And that there is no feedback from bad behavior to lack of opportunity. And that cultural diffusion just doesn't exist or doesn't matter. Am I getting this right? Not a sarcastic question, I think there are massive amounts of assumption that creep in unnoticed in all these discussions, by me as much as anyone. And just for the record, (1) I didn't downvote you, even though I think you are wrong, and wrong in a way that is holding the USA back, and (2) I would consider myself a socialist. I just think socialism should get away from "fight the rich! bad rich people!" to working on how to enculturate and change the poor so the rich just go poof and disappear; OF COURSE there is the danger we go too far in this, and there is also the fact that we need to make careful and tentative value judgements about good versus bad behavior, something the left is, reasonably given history, loathe to do. (ramble, ramble, ... sorry...)
- afterburner 15y ago
  Official leftist dogma? Man, OK, I'll have to think about that. I'm not advocating a mindless "fight the rich" ideology, I'm not sure why you're getting that from my comment. The bit about preserving the elite wasn't meant in a way to suggest we need to eliminate the rich. I was primarily responding to this part in the parent comment: "Sending them to Harvard isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. Well, MAYBE if you sent one or two, but if you sent enough, they'd just ruin Harvard." That and him being so hard on the attitudes of the poor, and all the talk of it holding him back. I'm not saying the poor can't also develop good habits (many learn to work really hard for little reward), but they clearly don't develop whatever attitude it is the parent commenter was looking for in order to not be held back. And that is probably largely related to not being around that particular mindset in the first place, because it's more of a mindset of the non-poor.
  - forkandwait 15y ago
    Yeah, I think it is official leftist dogma, which isn't really a bad thing (I prefer it to rightist dogma at least). But, as Nietzsche reminds us, every dogma exists to help effect a subconscious will to power, whether you're a social worker or a capitalist. From your second paragraph (with "that is probably related to not being around that particular mindset"), I think we all agree on the value of enculturation in a person's success, though we are all different in our connotations. I think he is playing "let's call a spade a spade" in his post. I also don't think you are advocating fight the rich, but I do think you are channeling arguments that others have made uncritically. It's ok, we all do it, all the time.
    - afterburner 15y ago
      There's not many original ideas around regarding this stuff, and even fewer plausible explanations, I'm afraid most people will usually sound like they're repeating other peoples' ideas.
      - forkandwait 15y ago
run4yourlives 15y ago
advocating the preservation of the elite by gating access to it This statement assumes that there is a fixed amount of wealth that must be protected; it's prevalent in socialist thinking, as well as in the thinking of the poor (it's part of the contagion). It's also 100% incorrect. The creation of wealth is not a zero-sum game.
- afterburner 15y ago
  You are making assumptions about my thinking on this subject. All I'm saying is that the parent commenter is advocating gating access, so as not to "ruin Harvard". Maybe he believes there's a fixed amount of wealth.
  - run4yourlives 15y ago
    My point (and the op's) is that there isn't a single network that needs to be accessed, there is a single network that needs to be disengaged from. It's making the opposite point than the article does: You don't improve the lot of the poor by introducing them to some master network of elites, you improve it by removing them from the network that reinforces the bad behaviour.

afterburner 15y ago

Hey, if I'm being downvoted for my last sentence, then keep in mind that is the statement in my post actually most likely to be true.

forkandwait 15y ago

"People develop those bad attitudes, viewpoints, or whatever, in large part because they are poor. The contagion aspect, if it exists, is secondary." I think this is the official leftist dogma, but I actually fail to see any obvious causality. I think it assumes that structural lack of opportunity (ie you qualified to be a surgeon, but the y only job you can get is shoeshine boy because you are black) leads to resentment leads to bad behavior. And that there is no feedback from bad behavior to lack of opportunity. And that cultural diffusion just doesn't exist or doesn't matter. Am I getting this right? Not a sarcastic question, I think there are massive amounts of assumption that creep in unnoticed in all these discussions, by me as much as anyone. And just for the record, (1) I didn't downvote you, even though I think you are wrong, and wrong in a way that is holding the USA back, and (2) I would consider myself a socialist. I just think socialism should get away from "fight the rich! bad rich people!" to working on how to enculturate and change the poor so the rich just go poof and disappear; OF COURSE there is the danger we go too far in this, and there is also the fact that we need to make careful and tentative value judgements about good versus bad behavior, something the left is, reasonably given history, loathe to do. (ramble, ramble, ... sorry...)

afterburner 15y ago
Official leftist dogma? Man, OK, I'll have to think about that. I'm not advocating a mindless "fight the rich" ideology, I'm not sure why you're getting that from my comment. The bit about preserving the elite wasn't meant in a way to suggest we need to eliminate the rich. I was primarily responding to this part in the parent comment: "Sending them to Harvard isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. Well, MAYBE if you sent one or two, but if you sent enough, they'd just ruin Harvard." That and him being so hard on the attitudes of the poor, and all the talk of it holding him back. I'm not saying the poor can't also develop good habits (many learn to work really hard for little reward), but they clearly don't develop whatever attitude it is the parent commenter was looking for in order to not be held back. And that is probably largely related to not being around that particular mindset in the first place, because it's more of a mindset of the non-poor.
- forkandwait 15y ago
  Yeah, I think it is official leftist dogma, which isn't really a bad thing (I prefer it to rightist dogma at least). But, as Nietzsche reminds us, every dogma exists to help effect a subconscious will to power, whether you're a social worker or a capitalist. From your second paragraph (with "that is probably related to not being around that particular mindset"), I think we all agree on the value of enculturation in a person's success, though we are all different in our connotations. I think he is playing "let's call a spade a spade" in his post. I also don't think you are advocating fight the rich, but I do think you are channeling arguments that others have made uncritically. It's ok, we all do it, all the time.
  - afterburner 15y ago
    There's not many original ideas around regarding this stuff, and even fewer plausible explanations, I'm afraid most people will usually sound like they're repeating other peoples' ideas.
    - forkandwait 15y ago

run4yourlives 15y ago

advocating the preservation of the elite by gating access to it This statement assumes that there is a fixed amount of wealth that must be protected; it's prevalent in socialist thinking, as well as in the thinking of the poor (it's part of the contagion). It's also 100% incorrect. The creation of wealth is not a zero-sum game.

afterburner 15y ago
You are making assumptions about my thinking on this subject. All I'm saying is that the parent commenter is advocating gating access, so as not to "ruin Harvard". Maybe he believes there's a fixed amount of wealth.
- run4yourlives 15y ago
  My point (and the op's) is that there isn't a single network that needs to be accessed, there is a single network that needs to be disengaged from. It's making the opposite point than the article does: You don't improve the lot of the poor by introducing them to some master network of elites, you improve it by removing them from the network that reinforces the bad behaviour.