4 ms·

Does having supporting parents undermine any success a self made person might have ?

by qazpot 4y ago

nix0n 4y ago
> supporting parents > self made The two concepts cannot coexist. Someone who is supported by others is not self-made. Turning wealth into wealth is not an accomplishment. It was already there.
- marioletto 4y ago
  > Turning wealth into wealth is not an accomplishment. Where do you draw the line? How is the work of doubling the wealth received as inheritance different from doubling the wealth of a client?
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  Yes, truly, unless you have been raised by rabid wolves or alone in the void of space, you are not self made. Is there a point in even having this word, if it is literally impossible for it to correctly(according to you) be used in any scenario?
  - nix0n 4y ago
    My comment got kind of far from its context, visually. By "supporting" I'm really referring to significant amounts of financial support, beyond what normal people would be able to give to their children. I do think it's possible for a person to be self-made. But I think the much narrower concept of the "self-made American millionaire" does more harm than good, as a mythological idea in US politics. Edit: Before you reply to this, read a little more of the thread I'm saying this in, where other people are making this point more eloquently.
    - Handytinge 4y ago
      I'm curious, who is more "self-made" in your opinion, someone with unsupportive parents who provide money, or someone with supportive (emotionally) parents without money? What about someone that had neither, but due to the country they grew up in or the colour of their skin they have access to government funded incentive programs, or bank loans? What if you benefited from colonialism hundreds of years ago, or the establishment of infrastucture such as roads or telephone lines? Are you self made? This weird privilege check doesn't make much sense to me. The "self-made" test to me is "did you put in the work and do the grind?". That's it.
marioletto 4y ago
Of course not but it’s an easy target for this kind of articles. Like the natural wine.
black_puppydog 4y ago
Only if they (or others) imply that "everyone could have done it" and use their "self-made" success to argue against social safety-nets like unemployment benefits and healthcare for all.
- wing-_-nuts 4y ago
  Well said.
antisthenes 4y ago
Only if they don't acknowledge they would have accomplished less (or nothing) without it.
wing-_-nuts 4y ago
Absolutely not, but that person is in no position to then turn around and judge those who are struggling, or more subtly, refusing to support policies that would help those that are struggling. There isn't the blatant 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' admonishment but there is absolutely an empathy gap between the haves and have nots.
- spaetzleesser 4y ago
  And they shouldn’t be held up as role models in the media.
spaetzleesser 4y ago
It does very much undermine the claim of being “self made”.

Does having supporting parents undermine any success a self made person might have ?

by qazpot 4y ago

Does having supporting parents undermine any success a self made person might have ?

> supporting parents > self made The two concepts cannot coexist. Someone who is supported by others is not self-made. Turning wealth into wealth is not an accomplishment. It was already there.

marioletto 4y ago
> Turning wealth into wealth is not an accomplishment. Where do you draw the line? How is the work of doubling the wealth received as inheritance different from doubling the wealth of a client?
oh_sigh 4y ago
Yes, truly, unless you have been raised by rabid wolves or alone in the void of space, you are not self made. Is there a point in even having this word, if it is literally impossible for it to correctly(according to you) be used in any scenario?
- nix0n 4y ago
  My comment got kind of far from its context, visually. By "supporting" I'm really referring to significant amounts of financial support, beyond what normal people would be able to give to their children. I do think it's possible for a person to be self-made. But I think the much narrower concept of the "self-made American millionaire" does more harm than good, as a mythological idea in US politics. Edit: Before you reply to this, read a little more of the thread I'm saying this in, where other people are making this point more eloquently.
  - Handytinge 4y ago
    I'm curious, who is more "self-made" in your opinion, someone with unsupportive parents who provide money, or someone with supportive (emotionally) parents without money? What about someone that had neither, but due to the country they grew up in or the colour of their skin they have access to government funded incentive programs, or bank loans? What if you benefited from colonialism hundreds of years ago, or the establishment of infrastucture such as roads or telephone lines? Are you self made? This weird privilege check doesn't make much sense to me. The "self-made" test to me is "did you put in the work and do the grind?". That's it.

marioletto 4y ago

Of course not but it’s an easy target for this kind of articles. Like the natural wine.

black_puppydog 4y ago

Only if they (or others) imply that "everyone could have done it" and use their "self-made" success to argue against social safety-nets like unemployment benefits and healthcare for all.

wing-_-nuts 4y ago
Well said.

antisthenes 4y ago

Only if they don't acknowledge they would have accomplished less (or nothing) without it.

wing-_-nuts 4y ago

Absolutely not, but that person is in no position to then turn around and judge those who are struggling, or more subtly, refusing to support policies that would help those that are struggling. There isn't the blatant 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' admonishment but there is absolutely an empathy gap between the haves and have nots.

spaetzleesser 4y ago
And they shouldn’t be held up as role models in the media.

spaetzleesser 4y ago

It does very much undermine the claim of being “self made”.