3 ms·

Christ, get over the class thing. Yes, if you have parents and good connections you've got an advantage. Yes, these traits are often a result of class historica

Christ, get over the class thing. Yes, if you have parents and good connections you've got an advantage. Yes, these traits are often a result of class historically. But trying to use class as an excuse for your own failure is not valid in this day and age.

lotsofcows 14y ago
A down vote! What a great argument! Now I see the error of my ways! Class per se is totally still a feature in our day-to-day lives.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
coldtea 14y ago
>But trying to use class as an excuse for your own failure is not valid in this day and age. If it's a factor, then it's perfectly valid. All this talk about "it's your own failure" only serves to stop anybody from attempting to change the overall class thing (not by his individual, outlier, success: systemically). I don't see many rich black entrepreneurs coming from Mississippi or Alabama, for example. Or from "white trash" trailer parks. Or the latino California population. Mostly upper and higher middle class white and asian families with mucho dinero. Do you see anything different? Let's take the top 100 successful startup founders of the last 10 years and check their backgrounds.
- lotsofcows 14y ago
  Can't really comment, I have no understanding of USA's class system, but as I said, coming from a wealthy and connected background is no longer exclusively for the upper classes. Passive aggressive reverse snobbery is pointless.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    "coming from a wealthy and connected background is no longer exclusively for the upper classes" Isn't that basically the definition of upper class in any practical terms?
    - unclebucknasty 14y ago
      Indeed it is the definition. The parent of your comment is exactly the other prong of the faux meritocracy argument. One side is this story about the 15 year old kid who "made it". That's the carrot. The other side is, "yeah, if you don't make it, its your own fault. Just work harder, smarter, etc." That's the stick. So, the implication is that we are living in a meritocracy. If you happen to be astute enough to point out how ridiculous that is on its face, then the response is that you're whining and you should be able to overcome anyway. Nothing needs to be addressed in the system and nevermind that the game is rigged. You just need to be less of a loser.
    - lotsofcows 14y ago
      No. The upper classes have lived on the same estate for 5 generations, can trace their family back to the Doomsday Book, don't work in the "have a job" sense, had a massively disproportionate wealth up to the first world war and possibly still do (or, conversely, are massively in debt against their crumbling mansion which they won't give up a. out of principle and b. because no-one wants it) and inherit usable practical clothes that their grandparents wore.
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        That's a very narrow definition which would even exclude people like Alan Sugar who has an actual lordship and knighthood as well piles of cash. It's not an especially useful definition anyway, if your family has a lot of money it doesn't make much practical difference whether they got that via inheritance or via starting facebook you will get similar advantages either way.
        lotsofcows 14y ago
        What? There is no way that anyone could consider Alan Sugar to be upper class? Was that an attempt at a joke? There's some sort of deep cultural disconnect going on here. Are you English? "Practical difference" What are you talking about? Rich is rich. Upper class is upper class. Traditionally / historically being upper class has implied money. Having money has never implied upper class.
lotsofcows 14y ago
Are USAians so disconnected from the concept of "the rest of the world" as to fail to realise that an English article about class has nothing to do with USAian concepts of class? The number of downvotes and poor quality of debate has been really quite shocking.

lotsofcows 14y ago

A down vote! What a great argument! Now I see the error of my ways! Class per se is totally still a feature in our day-to-day lives.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

coldtea 14y ago

>But trying to use class as an excuse for your own failure is not valid in this day and age. If it's a factor, then it's perfectly valid. All this talk about "it's your own failure" only serves to stop anybody from attempting to change the overall class thing (not by his individual, outlier, success: systemically). I don't see many rich black entrepreneurs coming from Mississippi or Alabama, for example. Or from "white trash" trailer parks. Or the latino California population. Mostly upper and higher middle class white and asian families with mucho dinero. Do you see anything different? Let's take the top 100 successful startup founders of the last 10 years and check their backgrounds.

lotsofcows 14y ago
Can't really comment, I have no understanding of USA's class system, but as I said, coming from a wealthy and connected background is no longer exclusively for the upper classes. Passive aggressive reverse snobbery is pointless.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  "coming from a wealthy and connected background is no longer exclusively for the upper classes" Isn't that basically the definition of upper class in any practical terms?
  - unclebucknasty 14y ago
    Indeed it is the definition. The parent of your comment is exactly the other prong of the faux meritocracy argument. One side is this story about the 15 year old kid who "made it". That's the carrot. The other side is, "yeah, if you don't make it, its your own fault. Just work harder, smarter, etc." That's the stick. So, the implication is that we are living in a meritocracy. If you happen to be astute enough to point out how ridiculous that is on its face, then the response is that you're whining and you should be able to overcome anyway. Nothing needs to be addressed in the system and nevermind that the game is rigged. You just need to be less of a loser.
  - lotsofcows 14y ago
    No. The upper classes have lived on the same estate for 5 generations, can trace their family back to the Doomsday Book, don't work in the "have a job" sense, had a massively disproportionate wealth up to the first world war and possibly still do (or, conversely, are massively in debt against their crumbling mansion which they won't give up a. out of principle and b. because no-one wants it) and inherit usable practical clothes that their grandparents wore.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      That's a very narrow definition which would even exclude people like Alan Sugar who has an actual lordship and knighthood as well piles of cash. It's not an especially useful definition anyway, if your family has a lot of money it doesn't make much practical difference whether they got that via inheritance or via starting facebook you will get similar advantages either way.
      - lotsofcows 14y ago
        What? There is no way that anyone could consider Alan Sugar to be upper class? Was that an attempt at a joke? There's some sort of deep cultural disconnect going on here. Are you English? "Practical difference" What are you talking about? Rich is rich. Upper class is upper class. Traditionally / historically being upper class has implied money. Having money has never implied upper class.

lotsofcows 14y ago

Are USAians so disconnected from the concept of "the rest of the world" as to fail to realise that an English article about class has nothing to do with USAian concepts of class? The number of downvotes and poor quality of debate has been really quite shocking.