3 ms·

>> Let’s consider the contrary. Do poor people sometimes hold highly questionable beliefs, promulgated by institutions, and does professing these beliefs in exp

by nec4b 3y ago

>> Let’s consider the contrary. Do poor people sometimes hold highly questionable beliefs, promulgated by institutions, and does professing these beliefs in expensive and flamboyant ways confer status? I would consider those beliefs pretty harmless compared to what intelligentsia believes in, even after 100 millions of people died because of their social experiment in the 20th century.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> I would consider those beliefs pretty harmless compared to what intelligentsia believes in Is it that the beliefs are inherently less harmful or that poverty inherently involves less capacity to affect the material conditions of others? That is, are poor people's dangerous beliefs less dangerous than those of richer people because of their content, or simply because the people holding them are less powerful?
- nec4b 3y ago
  I guess both, one hand they don't have the time to come up elaborate ideological concepts/fantasies and on the other hand they don't really have the power to change anything. If the most egregious thing you can be accused of is "publicly dumping cases of Bud Light", I don't think you are at the same level as the inventors and executioners of the cultural revolution for example.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > If the most egregious thing you can be accused of is "publicly dumping cases of Bud Light", I don't think you are at the same level as the inventors and executioners of the cultural revolution for example. The people doing that (and moreso, spreading the idea of it) largely are the intelligentsia (and largely not the proletarian intelligentsia), and while that’s one particular demonstrative act, its not by far the worst the faction doing it can be accused of. So I’m not so sure that works as an example on multiple levels.
    - nec4b 3y ago
      If they can't be even accused of dumping Bud Light cases (you say even this was devised by the intelligentsia), what is then the most egregious thing the poor did?

by nec4b 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I would consider those beliefs pretty harmless compared to what intelligentsia believes in Is it that the beliefs are inherently less harmful or that poverty inherently involves less capacity to affect the material conditions of others? That is, are poor people's dangerous beliefs less dangerous than those of richer people because of their content, or simply because the people holding them are less powerful?

nec4b 3y ago
I guess both, one hand they don't have the time to come up elaborate ideological concepts/fantasies and on the other hand they don't really have the power to change anything. If the most egregious thing you can be accused of is "publicly dumping cases of Bud Light", I don't think you are at the same level as the inventors and executioners of the cultural revolution for example.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > If the most egregious thing you can be accused of is "publicly dumping cases of Bud Light", I don't think you are at the same level as the inventors and executioners of the cultural revolution for example. The people doing that (and moreso, spreading the idea of it) largely are the intelligentsia (and largely not the proletarian intelligentsia), and while that’s one particular demonstrative act, its not by far the worst the faction doing it can be accused of. So I’m not so sure that works as an example on multiple levels.
  - nec4b 3y ago
    If they can't be even accused of dumping Bud Light cases (you say even this was devised by the intelligentsia), what is then the most egregious thing the poor did?