5 ms·

> Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful

by mrpopo 5y ago

sillysaurusx 5y ago
What does this even mean? That ungrateful poor people are the best poor people? This entire thread is actually making me upset. I'll bow out. /r/antiwork would have a field day with that quote. It's pretty much the poster child of disconnected rich folk. A real "let them eat cake" mentality.
- onion2k 5y ago
  That ungrateful poor people are the best poor people? The best among the poor are ungrateful because they don't want to have to rely on charity; they want to be self-reliant, to work and earn and not need charity in the first place. Rather than being grateful for charity they want a society where they don't end up in a situation where charity is necessary. In a just society people would have equality, equity, and opportunity to provide for themselves, and support from the community if they're unlucky enough not to be able to. No one should have to be grateful for someone else's help because no one should need someone else's help. Needing to rely on the charity of another person is an indignity that drives home how unequal two people are.
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    Since you seem interested in chatting, I left a response over on a parallel thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29413523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29413523 In a society where some people get more than others, it's hard to imagine that there are zero poor people. Therefore it's up to the rich to be generous enough to help them. It doesn't even cost us that much -- small acts of charity can ahve a huge impact.
    - onion2k 5y ago
      it's hard to imagine that there are zero poor people Of course, but that's OK. "Poor" is a relative term that we measure against "rich". It's OK to be poor. I don't believe the rich should give to the poor simply to equalize how much wealth each person has. The concept of rich people is fine. One day I'd like to be one. Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk could marry and form the world's first half-a-trillion-dollars power couple for all I care. The issue is people having that much money while at the same time people on their doorstep are starving, homeless, and dying because they have to ration their medicine. The fact that corporations and the elite refuse to pay taxes means the structural issues in society aren't being addressed (taxation is part of the issue; how the government spends what they raise in taxes is the other half.) We could live in a society where no one is homeless, everyone has enough food and warmth, and everyone gets a good education and hospital treatment if they need it, and everyone would be able to work to buy the best Ferrari or to travel or to make art. 21st century human society is capable of that. We choose not to.
- mrpopo 5y ago
  Being grateful means implicitly accepting the status quo that poor people have to rely on rich people's charity. Oscar Wilde is saying that society should not accept that status quo, and that wealth redistribution should be unconditional, either via better opportunities of earning money or via taxes. Not sure what makes you upset about that.
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    It makes me upset for a few reasons, if you're interested to know. First is the idea that a rich person can measure the "best" type of poor person. Excluding criminals, there aren't better or worse poor people. Just people struggling to survive. The second is the idea that charity isn't beneficial. I've personally benefitted from countless acts of small charity throughout my life, and I'm not even poor. Nowadays I try to pay it forward by donating to Watsi, and I'm quite certain that the kid whose finger got cut off by a bandsaw is now grateful to be treating his staph infection, thanks to charitable donations. The third reason is that it's being used as a talking point on HN rather than us, y'know, thanking her for giving away so much when she didn't need to. It's implicitly criticizing what she's doing. Which would be fine, if the critique had merit. But what is being proposed here, exactly? A wealth redistribution program that makes such "donations" mandatory?
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    ...either via better opportunities of earning money or via taxes. These aren't the only possibilities.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

> Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful

by mrpopo 5y ago

> Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful

What does this even mean? That ungrateful poor people are the best poor people? This entire thread is actually making me upset. I'll bow out. /r/antiwork would have a field day with that quote. It's pretty much the poster child of disconnected rich folk. A real "let them eat cake" mentality.

onion2k 5y ago
That ungrateful poor people are the best poor people? The best among the poor are ungrateful because they don't want to have to rely on charity; they want to be self-reliant, to work and earn and not need charity in the first place. Rather than being grateful for charity they want a society where they don't end up in a situation where charity is necessary. In a just society people would have equality, equity, and opportunity to provide for themselves, and support from the community if they're unlucky enough not to be able to. No one should have to be grateful for someone else's help because no one should need someone else's help. Needing to rely on the charity of another person is an indignity that drives home how unequal two people are.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  Since you seem interested in chatting, I left a response over on a parallel thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29413523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29413523 In a society where some people get more than others, it's hard to imagine that there are zero poor people. Therefore it's up to the rich to be generous enough to help them. It doesn't even cost us that much -- small acts of charity can ahve a huge impact.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    it's hard to imagine that there are zero poor people Of course, but that's OK. "Poor" is a relative term that we measure against "rich". It's OK to be poor. I don't believe the rich should give to the poor simply to equalize how much wealth each person has. The concept of rich people is fine. One day I'd like to be one. Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk could marry and form the world's first half-a-trillion-dollars power couple for all I care. The issue is people having that much money while at the same time people on their doorstep are starving, homeless, and dying because they have to ration their medicine. The fact that corporations and the elite refuse to pay taxes means the structural issues in society aren't being addressed (taxation is part of the issue; how the government spends what they raise in taxes is the other half.) We could live in a society where no one is homeless, everyone has enough food and warmth, and everyone gets a good education and hospital treatment if they need it, and everyone would be able to work to buy the best Ferrari or to travel or to make art. 21st century human society is capable of that. We choose not to.
mrpopo 5y ago
Being grateful means implicitly accepting the status quo that poor people have to rely on rich people's charity. Oscar Wilde is saying that society should not accept that status quo, and that wealth redistribution should be unconditional, either via better opportunities of earning money or via taxes. Not sure what makes you upset about that.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  It makes me upset for a few reasons, if you're interested to know. First is the idea that a rich person can measure the "best" type of poor person. Excluding criminals, there aren't better or worse poor people. Just people struggling to survive. The second is the idea that charity isn't beneficial. I've personally benefitted from countless acts of small charity throughout my life, and I'm not even poor. Nowadays I try to pay it forward by donating to Watsi, and I'm quite certain that the kid whose finger got cut off by a bandsaw is now grateful to be treating his staph infection, thanks to charitable donations. The third reason is that it's being used as a talking point on HN rather than us, y'know, thanking her for giving away so much when she didn't need to. It's implicitly criticizing what she's doing. Which would be fine, if the critique had merit. But what is being proposed here, exactly? A wealth redistribution program that makes such "donations" mandatory?
- jessaustin 5y ago
  ...either via better opportunities of earning money or via taxes. These aren't the only possibilities.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]