3 ms·
EDIT: I meant someone with 'vip' status, not someone just known to the admin stuff. That still does not invalidate my point. I think my examples address the qu
by laeri 3y ago
EDIT: I meant someone with 'vip' status, not someone just known to the admin stuff. That still does not invalidate my point.
I think my examples address the questions or what do you think they miss? You suffer either because of low status or you have low status because you suffer of some deficiencies that other people think you have.
For sure low status can also be arbitrary in many cases but it still has consequences.
- theelous3 3y agoWhat is someone with vip status? I could be an anti-social weak willed loser respected by nobody, but if I have good health insurance in the US I'm going to get preferential treatment over someone with worse health insurance regardless of whatever other social status goings on there are. Is having good health insurance social status? Or is it just having good health insurance? I'm not from the US so the hospital example doesn't really apply to me, it's far more egalitarian here, but even in the US I think the above counterexample shows some cracks in the notion. Furthermore, I don't think a lack of advantages are the same as repercussions. Repercussions are active negatives, where lack of advantages are inactive positives. This is specifically what I was asking about, and why I don't feel like these examples are getting at "repercussions".
- laeri 3y agoI don't see the connection with health insurance itself. I agree that this has nothing to do with status. My comparison does not include domeone with healthcare and someone without. Being treated worse is a repercussion. Being actively denied them is a repercussion and also an active negative in your definition. If you are keen on this distinction you can ignore the health care example. But the social consequences fall definetely in this category.