3 ms·

>Yes. That's called gentrification. No, not really. Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and parks, look it up. >Well, that of their dogs.

>Yes. That's called gentrification. No, not really. Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and parks, look it up. >Well, that of their dogs. Well, I am talking about human shit specifically but homeless have dogs too. So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit? In the same universe where gentrification is when rich people camp on the streets and pass out from drugs? >They get around this by doing blow instead. You completely lost me. Are you just playing associations and type whatever first comes into your head? Good luck with that.

underlipton 2y ago
>So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit? People can't afford to be bothered by rich people's dog shit (which is as bad as people shit, for all intents and purposes), because that would involve passing laws to fine rich people above the "cost of doing business" line and/or taking them to court, both of which are quite expensive ventures. >Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and parks, look it up. If you don't have the imagination to understand how gentrification could be considered the rich-person equivalent of camping in public places, in that both corrupt existing urban streetscapes to the best of their respective financial abilities, there might not be any reason to continue this conversation. >You completely lost me. That much is clear. You seem to be trying really hard to avoid understanding the fairly basic and simple notion that equality under the law is unequal when the laws themselves are. The moral virtue of subjecting everyone to the same standards is undermined by those standards being shaped to punish the likely (immoral) behavior of one group while ignoring the likely (immoral) behavior of another. The only way around this is assuming that rich people just don't do immoral things, which beggars the question; rich people use their money to cast their immoral behavior as moral (or at least amoral). So you end up with this argument, where I say, "Here are the bad things rich people do that are analogous to bad things that poor people do," and you respond, confused, "But those things rich people do aren't all that bad." They'd gotten to you before you'd even known it.
- pandaman 2y ago
  Yes, there are laws about not picking up shit after dogs and they apply to rich people who get ticketed and sued for that, don't use your imagination, use Google to check basic facts about the real world. No, gentrification is not "equivalent" to camping, look it up. Laws are unequal by definition, why would anybody had two equal laws? Laws are different and not equal to each other. It's irrelevant to the topic of the discussion where you obviously understand that we do indeed punish actions and not poverty but since you like the quote so much you are desperately trying to move the discussion into the one about how being rich is easy. Yes it is. People would rather be rich than poor. If you spend more time thinking and less time imagining you might stumble upon the casual relationship between doing things that are punished and being poor and doing things that are rewarded and being rich.
  - underlipton 2y ago
    >and they apply to rich people Nominally. The magnitude of the fine matters, because the magnitude of the wealth available to pay the fine is notably higher than any given other person also subject to it. Hence the original quote. >No, gentrification is not "equivalent" to camping "both corrupt existing urban streetscapes to the best of their respective financial abilities". "Look it up" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. This is what I mean when I say that they've already gotten to you, and that you're beggaring the question. The causal relationship between wealth (which is acquired, at best, amorally) and "things that are punished/rewarded" is that wealth allows one to set those rules themselves. Naturally, the wealthy reward their behavior and punish what offends them. This is a disjointing of morality and criminality, per the whims of the rich, which is the entire point of the quote. Meanwhile, there is behavior common to wealth that SHOULD be punished, but isn't.

underlipton 2y ago

>So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit? People can't afford to be bothered by rich people's dog shit (which is as bad as people shit, for all intents and purposes), because that would involve passing laws to fine rich people above the "cost of doing business" line and/or taking them to court, both of which are quite expensive ventures. >Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and parks, look it up. If you don't have the imagination to understand how gentrification could be considered the rich-person equivalent of camping in public places, in that both corrupt existing urban streetscapes to the best of their respective financial abilities, there might not be any reason to continue this conversation. >You completely lost me. That much is clear. You seem to be trying really hard to avoid understanding the fairly basic and simple notion that equality under the law is unequal when the laws themselves are. The moral virtue of subjecting everyone to the same standards is undermined by those standards being shaped to punish the likely (immoral) behavior of one group while ignoring the likely (immoral) behavior of another. The only way around this is assuming that rich people just don't do immoral things, which beggars the question; rich people use their money to cast their immoral behavior as moral (or at least amoral). So you end up with this argument, where I say, "Here are the bad things rich people do that are analogous to bad things that poor people do," and you respond, confused, "But those things rich people do aren't all that bad." They'd gotten to you before you'd even known it.

pandaman 2y ago
Yes, there are laws about not picking up shit after dogs and they apply to rich people who get ticketed and sued for that, don't use your imagination, use Google to check basic facts about the real world. No, gentrification is not "equivalent" to camping, look it up. Laws are unequal by definition, why would anybody had two equal laws? Laws are different and not equal to each other. It's irrelevant to the topic of the discussion where you obviously understand that we do indeed punish actions and not poverty but since you like the quote so much you are desperately trying to move the discussion into the one about how being rich is easy. Yes it is. People would rather be rich than poor. If you spend more time thinking and less time imagining you might stumble upon the casual relationship between doing things that are punished and being poor and doing things that are rewarded and being rich.
- underlipton 2y ago
  >and they apply to rich people Nominally. The magnitude of the fine matters, because the magnitude of the wealth available to pay the fine is notably higher than any given other person also subject to it. Hence the original quote. >No, gentrification is not "equivalent" to camping "both corrupt existing urban streetscapes to the best of their respective financial abilities". "Look it up" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. This is what I mean when I say that they've already gotten to you, and that you're beggaring the question. The causal relationship between wealth (which is acquired, at best, amorally) and "things that are punished/rewarded" is that wealth allows one to set those rules themselves. Naturally, the wealthy reward their behavior and punish what offends them. This is a disjointing of morality and criminality, per the whims of the rich, which is the entire point of the quote. Meanwhile, there is behavior common to wealth that SHOULD be punished, but isn't.